UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT
DEPARTMENT OF MODERN LANGUAGES
Bachelor’s Thesis:
The L1 and L2 Acquisition of English Articles
Author
Suzanne Dekker 3489337
Supervisor
Dr. W.C.H. Philip
July 2013
Abstract
This thesis is a review of empirical literature investigating how L2-learners whose L1
lack articles acquire the semantics of articles. Based on several experimental studies, it is
argued that mistakes in the L2-acquisition of articles are non-random: adult L2-learners
overuse the in specific indefinite contexts. This article misuse reflects access to the universal
semantic features of definiteness, specificity and partitivity, supporting the conclusion that
L2-acquisition is guided by UG.
2
Contents
Abstract
2
Contents
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
4
Chapter 2: The Semantics and L1-Acquisition of Articles
5
Chapter 3: Second language acquisition of English Articles
12
Chapter 4: Discussion
25
Chapter 5: Conclusion
27
Works Cited
28
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
This thesis is a review of the empirical literature on the acquisition of English definite
and indefinite articles, with special focus on the accessibility of Universal Grammar in the
adult acquisition of these articles. It is a comparison of different studies on the acquisition of
these articles by native speakers (L1A) to that of second language learners (L2-learners or
L2-speakers) of English. To provide a clearer picture of what is happening in the L2acquisition, this thesis will only focus on L2-speakers whose first language does not contain
definite/indefinite articles. Specifically, this includes speakers of Japanese, Chinese, Russian
or Korean. Because these languages have no system of definite and indefinite articles1, it is
unlikely that L1-transfer affects the acquisition of the English article system.
Possible parallels of L2-learners of English and L1-learners of English in the domain
of article semantics would reflect the idea that L2-acquisition is guided by universal semantic
factors: Universal Grammar (UG) (Ionin, Ko and Wexler, 2004; Ko et al, to appear).
Therefore, the major goal of this thesis is to compare research on the acquisition of L2English articles and examine the role of UG in this acquisition.
1
However, it is possible that some of these languages do have demonstrative determiners. For instance, the
Japanese words “sono” and “kono” directly translate to “that” and “this”, respectively. These words can occupy
the position of a determiner in sentences such as “I saw the boy” or “I saw that boy”, and it is possible that L1Japanese learners of L2-English assume these words directly translate to determiners.
4
Chapter 2: The Semantics and L1-Acquisition of Articles
In English, there are three articles: the definite article the, the indefinite article a/an,
and the silent article ø, considered as an indefinite article2 (Ogawa 2008, p3). The distinction
between definite and indefinite articles is a surprisingly complex topic. Wexler et al (2007)
suggest that the correct usage of the definite the versus the indefinite a requires complex
semantic knowledge as well as pragmatic knowledge. The semantic knowledge required for
the acquisition of the meaning of the and a, as well as what they call “uniqueness
presupposition on the, and the absence of any presuppositions on a” (Ionin et al 2007). This
knowledge, however, needs to be combined with the pragmatic knowledge of when to use a
definite or an indefinite article, and the ability to compute whether or not the hearer shares
the speakers presupposition of uniqueness. The definite article the and the indefinite a have
“different interpretations that are captured in terms of two binary features,” namely referring
to a specific referent, otherwise known as specificity; and whether the article and the
associated NP are already known to the addressee, known as definiteness (Ogawa 2008,
p3). In other words, English articles can be marked for [+definite] or [-definite] as well as
[+specific] or [-specific].
The first distinguishing feature between definite and indefinite articles, definiteness,
covers shared knowledge for both the hearer and the listener. A reference to the X requires
not only that the speaker specify a member of the class X, but also that the reference bring
to mind the same, unique member of X as referent for the expression (Maratsos 1976, p3). In
2
There would appear to be a phonetically null definite article, which occurs in simplex names, illustrated in the
following examples where an ungrammatical option is marked with an asterisk (*).
John
versus
*the John
Canada versus
*the Canada
Clinton versus
*the Clinton
*Clintons
versus
The Clintons
*Netherlands
versus
The Netherlands
5
older research, such as the review of literature by Thomas (1989), definiteness, is called the
[+hearer known] factor, and indefiniteness is called the [-hearer known] factor. Ko et al (to
appear) define this factor by stating that a DP is [+definite] if the speaker assumes that the
hearer shares the speaker’s understanding of a unique referent.
The second factor, specificity, is defined by Maratsos (1976) as “a reference to some
member of the class nominated which has all the attributes required to be a member of that
class plus others which make it distinctive” (p3). In other words, the speaker intends to refer
to a unique individual of a set that possesses a noteworthy property (Ko et al, to appear).
This differs from definiteness in that it does not take into account what the hearer’s
knowledge of the object is, but focuses only on the speaker’s intention. Specificity for the
listener can be ensured by context, or elaborating a class description, as in (1).
(1).
a.
- “I left my keys on the table”
- “What table?”
b.
- “I left my keys on the table by the piano.”
However, [+definite] does not entail [+specific]. Using a definite article indicates that
there is a specific referent known to both speaker and listener, while using an indefinite
article indicates either a lack of distinguishing features aside from being a member of the
intended class, as indicated in the following examples: in (2) there is a specific referent,
namely the cat; while in (3a) and (3b) there is no mention of any specific member of the class
of pets or cars.
(2).
a.
- “The cat needs to be fed.”
(3).
a.
- “I want a pet.”
b.
- “I haven’t got a car.”
6
A traditional way of researching the acquisition of articles is to classify the articles
according to their environment, and then to investigate learners’ production of articles in
those environments (Thomas 1989). The two features discussed previously, namely
specificity and definiteness, vary independently and yield four article environments, each with
one or more possible articles. The first environment, [-specific, +definite], consists of generic
nouns, such as “fruit” and “a paperclip”. The, a and ø are possible options, depending on
noun type: mass nouns invoke use of the null article, illustrated in sentence 4a. Bare plural
require the use of the null article as well, as seen in sentence 4b. Count nouns require the
indefinite a, as illustrated by sentence 4c.
(4.)
a.
Ø fruit flourishes in the valley;
b.
Ø paperclips are delicious;
c.
A paperclip comes in handy.
The second environment, [-specific, -definite], can also be called the group of
nonreferential nouns. Possible article choices are a or ø. The choice between these articles
is regulated by the morphological properties that are orthogonal to the nouns in question.
This group includes “nouns that name a class to which another noun is asserted to belong or
that refer to an unspecified member of a class” (Thomas 1989, p336). The first type of noun,
also called attributive indefinites, is exemplified in 5a; the second type of noun, also called
nonspecific indefinites, is exemplified in 5b.
(5.)
a.
Alice is an accountant;
b.
I guess I should buy a new car
The third environment, [+specific, -definite], is called the first-mention group. These
nouns are identifiable to the speaker but not to the listener; they are introduced into the
discourse for the first time (Thomas 1989, p336). Possible article choices are a or ø. Once
these nouns are introduced into the discourse, as in sentence 6a, they normally become part
7
of the fourth environment, namely [+specific, +definite], also called referential definites,
exemplified in 6b.
(6.)
a.
Chris approached me carrying a dog;
b.
The dog jumped down
The fourth environment for nouns, [+specific, +definite], includes nouns that are
specific by entailment or definition, have been previously mentioned, are unique in a given
context or unique in all contexts.
The following table, adapted from Thomas (1989, p337), summarizes the data on the
felicitous use of definite and indefinite articles with four different types of nouns, as discussed
previously. It classifies nouns as plus of minus specific referent [+/- specific] and plus or
minus assumed known to hearer [+/- definite].
8
Table 1: Summary of properties of a, the and ø
Features
Environment
Articles
Example
(4a) Ø fruit flourishes in the valley;
4. [-specific, +definite]
Generic nouns
a, the, ø
(4b) Ø paperclips are delicious;
(4c) A paperclip comes in handy
5. [-specific, -definite]
Nonreferential nouns
a, ø
(5a) Alice is an accountant;
(5b) I guess I should buy a new car
- Attributive indefinites
- Nonspecific indefinites
6. [+specific, -definite]
a, ø
(6a) Chris approached me carrying
Referential indefinites
a dog
- First-mention nouns
(The dog jumped down…)
7. [+specific, +definite]
(Chris approached me carrying a
Referential definites
The
dog)
- Previous mention
(7a) The dog jumped down;
- Specified by entailment
(7b) I approached his front door
- Specified by definition
and rang the bell;
- Unique in all contexts
(7c) The top drawer is empty;
- Unique in a given
(7d) The moon will be full tomorrow
Context
Variations in article choice occur because article use in a given context is dependent
on the noun being singular or plural, and a mass or count noun. In other words, the four
environments provide several possibilities, but the lexical properties of the noun determine
article choice (Thomas 1989, p336). Another influencing factor has been suggested by
Ogawa (2008). He distinguishes another type of nouns, namely abstract nouns, because this
particular group of nouns can be used with all three possible articles, as exemplified in table
2.
The following table, based on Ogawa (2008), gives an overview of the different noun
types that require different articles: count nouns, mass nouns and abstract nouns. This table
shows that singular count nouns can occur with either the definite the or the indefinite a, but
9
not with the null article ø; plural count nouns can occur with the null article ø, and with the
definite the, but not with the indefinite a; abstract nouns can occur with all three possibilities,
the, a, or ø.
Table 2: Distribution of noun types and articles
Count noun
Mass noun
Abstract noun
Singular
Plural
The
the rabbit
the rabbits
the porridge
the understanding
a/an
a rabbit
X
X
an understanding
Ø
X
Ø rabbits
ø porridge
ø understanding
When acquiring this complex system of article use in the L1, children misuse articles
before having complete knowledge of the felicitous use of definite and indefinite articles
(Thomas 1989; Maratsos 1976). Thomas (1989) proposes four stages in the acquisition
process, summarised in table 3. In this table, the asterisk (*) marks an expected infelicitous
use of articles. Thomas also states that “none of the [studies reviewed] verif[y] all aspects of
[the] four stages, but [the studies combined] offer quite impressive support” for the theoretical
four stages of acquisition (Thomas 1989, p338). As these stages are only hypothesized,
there is no average age given for the development of the acquisition of definiteness and
specificity3.
In the first stage of acquisition, children mark all referential nouns, so [+specific]
nouns, with either a of the, but do not use articles with [-specific] nouns regardless of the [+/definite] state of the nouns. In the second stage, children will use the in [+specific] contexts
and a in [-specific] contexts, still regardless of potential definiteness. In the third stage,
children are predicted to have acquired a sensitivity to the definiteness feature and
reintroduce a into both [+specific] contexts. In the fourth stage, children have acquired adult-
3
Thomas (1989) does not provide a way of ordering these four suggested stages. If these stages can occur in
any order for any given child, they are not stages but manifestations of individual variation.
10
like competence in assigning articles according to both specificity and definiteness (Thomas,
1989, p338).
Table 3: Proposed four stages in the L1 acquisition of articles
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
*ø
A
a
Ø , a, the
*ø
A
a
A
a, *the
*the
A, *the
A
*a, the
The
(*a), the
The
[-specific, +definite]
Generics
[-specific, -definite]
Nonreferential nouns
-
attributive indefinites
-
nonreferential indefinites
[+specific, -definite]
Referential indefinites
-
first-mention nouns
[+specific, +definite]
Referential definites
-
previous-mention nouns
-
specification by entailment
-
specification by definition
-
unique in all contexts
-
unique in a given context
Thomas cites several studies (Warden 1976, p109; Brown 1973, p353; Power and
Dal Martello 1986, p150) claiming there is evidence that children misuse the definite article
with first-mention nouns, claiming that this result appears in naturalistic and experimental
data across several languages (1989, p339). For example, when a child is playing with
several toy bears, they would refer to “the bear” when talking to an adult without previously
specifying which of the toy bears in question is meant. According to Thomas (1989), Brown
(1973), Warden (1976) and Power and Dal Martello (1986), these findings constitute
evidence in that the child is unable to understand the point of view of those he addresses,
11
and believes that “a referent is specified as soon as he (the speaker) is familiar with it; he
fails to realize that his audience will only become familiar with his referent after he has
identified it for them verbally” (Warden 1976, p110). Ko et al (to appear) and Thomas (1989)
agree that L1-English children mistakenly using a definite article to refer to an object of which
the hearer does not share the speaker’s presupposition of uniqueness, an object in an
indefinite context, is based on egocentricity. They claim that children have not yet developed
a full-fledged understanding of the fact that a hearer’s knowledge can differ from their own,
resulting in the misuse of definite articles in [-definite] context. In other words, children
overuse the definite article because they believe that whatever is known to them is also
known to their listener4 (Thomas 1989, p339).
As adults are expected to have outgrown this egocentric view of the world, and are no
longer susceptible to it is highly unlikely that they would overuse the definite article for the
same reason when learning a second language5. Various studies have reported a negative
correlation between the age of second language acquisition (L2A) and the performance of
native-like ability (White & Genesee, 1996). It is argued that L2A is affected by a critical
period, often referred to as the Critical Period Hypothesis, henceforth CPH (Singleton &
Ryan, 2004). During this period, learners of a language are more sensitive to stimuli relevant
for language development. If the stimuli are absent during this period of acquisition, the
ability to develop native-like competence is no longer possible according to the CPH.
4
What this means, if it is true, is that the “stage” at which this occurs is not a linguistic stage. In other words,
this is not a stage in the development of grammatical competence but rather cognitive development combined
with linguistic knowledge. Children know how to use the correctly but they do not know how to recognize the
conditions under which the must be used.
5
Another possibility is that the child’s error in judgment is not based on egocentricity but is a processing
limitation. As the brain matures, it is capable of processing more complex information and processes
simultaneously, and it is possible that young children acquiring articles are simply not capable of mastering this
complex phenomenon because their brain’s processing capability is not yet powerful enough.
12
However, another theory is that certain parameters part of Universal Grammar can be
reset after the critical period has passed. In the case of article acquisition, L2-English
learners whose L1 lacks articles and who have not been in contact with English before the
critical period has passed could reset a possible article choice parameter, if there are indeed
any parameters here, and show access to Universal Grammar. Therefore, the following
chapter will present data from several studies concerning adult L2-acquisition of English
articles, and the conclusions about access to Universal Grammar that can be drawn from
these studies.
13
Chapter 3: Second language acquisition of English Articles
One of the ways to show that adult L2-learners have access to Universal Grammar is
to prove that their interlanguage grammar reflects possible linguistic options, such as
parameter values and semantic universals, that are not found in their L1 or in the target L2
(Ko et al, to appear, p 2). If findings from both L1 and L2 acquisition show similar patterns,
this provides evidence that UG constrains L2 interlanguage grammars as well6 (Thomas
1989). Therefore, if the interlanguage grammar of these L2-learners is found to include a
UG-option that is are found in neither the native language nor the target language, but does
reflect possibilities in other natural languages, it is likely that UG constrains the state of L2learners grammar.
Therefore, Ko et al (to appear) intended to provide evidence for UG access in L2acquisition, focusing on L1-Korean learners of L2-English. In the acquisition of a system of
definite and indefinite articles in L1-Korean learners of L2-English there is no L1-transfer to
account for because the L1 lacks a similar system of articles. Ko et al also point out in a
previous research that the use of English articles is “a subtle and complex phenomenon, and
there is no obvious L2 input or formal instruction that can help L2-learners acquire the
semantics of English articles” (Ionin, Ko and Wexler 2004). Therefore, the acquisition of
English articles by L1-Korean speakers provides a good opportunity to study the role of UG
in L2-acquisition.
In English, the distinction between the definite the and the indefinite a corresponds
with definiteness. In their paper, Ko et al report that article errors made by L2-learners are
not random, but constrained by semantic features of definiteness and specificity (Ko et al,
2007; Thomas 1989). Evidence for this claim comes from the overuse of the in [+specific, -
6
However, the other possible explanation of an observation that L1A and L2a patterns are similar is that this
piece of linguistic knowledge, namely parameter values and semantic universals, are not part of Universal
Grammar, but instead are part of Universal Cognition.
14
definite] context, and the overuse of a in [-specific, +definite] context, suggesting that L1Korean learners incorrectly assume that the system of English articles is based on specificity
instead of definiteness. As specificity is not a relevant factor for acquiring articles in L1
English or L1 Korean, but is relevant in an unrelated natural language, Samoan, adults
accessing this feature would argue for UG accessibility in adult L2 acquisition.
Similar claims have been made by Thomas, speculating that “after an early flooding
of the definite article across all environments, [subjects] associated the with the feature
[[+specific]], thus accounting for its sustained use with referential definites and generics and
its diminished use with first-mention and nonreferential nouns” (1989, p341). Her research
made use of a one-hour in-house placement test to judge speakers’ L2-English fluency
before they were asked to tell a narrative based on pictures to a second participant. These
pictures were designed to “reveal how the narrator used articles with first-mention and
previously-mentioned nouns” (Thomas 1989, p345).
To prove that article misuse is not random, but based on the universal features
of specificity and definiteness, Ko et al (to appear) asked 39 adult L1-Korean and 26 adult
L1-Russian speakers whose grasp of the English language was sufficient according to the
Michigan test of L2-English proficiency to perform a formal written elicitation task, namely a
cloze test. In this task, the participants were asked to fill in the missing articles in a series of
dialogues between two people. Three options were provided: the, a, or a dash representing
no article was required. 32 of the test items were divided into four categories based on the
variables of definiteness and specificity: [+definite, +specific], [+definite, -specific], [-definite,
+specific] and [-definite, -specific].
The target response for the use of English articles in the given contexts is as follows
in table 4.
Table 4: Target response for English articles
[+definite]
[-definite]
[+specific]
The
A
[-specific]
The
A
15
Table 5 sums up the results of the L1-Korean participants (N=39). Only the results for
the and a have been included; the remaining percentages reflect the use of null articles (ø).
As predicted, there was an overuse of a in [-specific, +definite] context; 14 percent of the
given answers were the infelicitous indefinite article a where the definite article the was
correct. As expected, there was also an overuse of the in [+specific, -definite] context; 22
percent of the answers were in the form of the definite article the where the indefinite a was
required. Ko et al state that the overuse of definite and indefinite articles in these contexts is
statistically significant. Hardly any article misuse in [+specific, +definite] or [-specific, definite] context occurred; not enough incorrect answers were given to be statistically
significant.
Table 5: Results L1-Korean participants
[+definite]
[-definite]
[+specific]
88% the
4%a
22% the
77% a
[-specific]
80% the
14%a
4% the
93% a
The results of the L1-Russian participants (N=26) are shown in table 6. Again, only
the results for the and a have been included; the remaining percentages reflect the use of
null articles (ø). The Russian group shows an even stronger misuse of definite and indefinite
articles in the same contexts, namely 33 percent overuse of a in [-specific, +definite] context
and 36 percent overuse of the in [+specific, -definite] context.
Table 6: Results L1-Russian participants
[+definite]
[-definite]
[+specific]
79% the
8% a
36% the
54% a
[-specific]
57% the
33% a
7% the
84% a
16
Ko et al state that L2-learners whose L1 lacks articles can access the universal
semantic features of specificity independent of the L1, as seen from the parallel findings from
both Korean and Russian speakers. Both groups showed a statistically significant overuse of
the definite article in [+specific. –definite] context, and an equally significant overuse of the
indefinite article in [-specific, +definite] context. Ko et al conclude that L2-learners of English
mistakenly assume specificity to be an underlying factor for the definite/indefinite distinction.
However, Ko et al (to appear) suggest that underlying factors for the
acquisition of L2-English articles are not limited to specificity and definiteness. Previous
studies on the acquisition of articles agree that children overuse the instead of a, but it has
not yet been concluded why the definite article is overused. A popular explanation is that
children lack the pragmatic knowledge of understanding the listener’s knowledge. This
explanations centres around egocentricity: children use the definite article when they have a
salient referent in mind, regardless of whether the DP has been introduced in previous
discourse or not. Another explanation includes the possibility that children consider definite
articles deictic, and only refer to an object under their own point of attention (Ko et al, p15).
There is also the possibility that children overuse the definite article due to a lack of
semantic knowledge: the lexical entry for the “carries a presupposition of existence, but lacks
the presupposition of ‘uniqueness’” (Ko et al, p15). In this, the children’s understanding of the
definite article differs from that of adults, and fundamentally carries the meaning “one of the
X”. Ko et al (to appear) suggest there is another factor responsible for this error, namely the
denotation that “an individual that is a member of a set introduced by previous discourse,”
also called partitivity (p 14). If a DP is [+partitive], it has been introduced in previous
discourse; if a DP is [-partitive], it has not been mentioned previously. Partitivity differs from
definiteness in that it “marks merely the presupposition of existence of a discourse referent,
whereas definiteness marks the presupposition of existence of a unique referent” (Ko et al
2008, p 120).
As concluded by Maratsos (1976, p51), children often misuse the in indefinite DPs
that have not yet been specifically mentioned (introduced) in the discourse and are therefore
17
[-partitive]. In sentences such as 7, where “four girls and three boys” is [+partitive, -definite] a
definite article is infelicitous because there is no unique referent.
(7).
Once there was a lady. She had lots of girls and boys, about four girls
and three boys. One of them started laughing and giggling. Let’s see.
Who was laughing and giggling like that? – Children’s response: The
boy (or: The girl)” (Ko et al, to appear).
In comparison, children often did supply an indefinite article when the context was [partitive, -definite] (Maratsos 1976, p53). On this data, Ko et all predicted that children
overuse the definite article the in partitive context. If a lack of pragmatic knowledge is the
underlying reason for the children’s article errors, the expectation is that adult errors differ
from child L1-learner errors as adults have full-fledged pragmatic knowledge. Adults are not
expected to repeat child L1-learner mistakes if those mistakes are based on egocentricity
and a lack of understanding another’s point of view. However, if partitivity is an influencing
factor, L2-learners would possibly show the same mistakes that child L1-learners do. Ko et
all hypothesize that partitivity is a universal semantic feature observable in L1-acquisition as
well as adult L2-acquisition.
Their expectation was therefore an overuse of the in [+partitive] contexts, but not in [partitive contexts] unless other features such as specificity affect the overuse of the. The
predictions for article misuse are summarised in table 7.
Table 7: Expected overuse of definite article in indefinite context
INDEFINITES
+partitive
-partitive
+specific
Overuse of the
Overuse of the
-specific
Overuse of the
Correct use of a
(target a)
18
To examine if adult L2-learners show the same type of article errors as child L1learners when their native language lacks an article system. This study was conducted with
adult L1-Korean learners of English to avoid L1-transfer effects as Korean lacks an article
system. L1-Korean speakers were also chosen to facilitate comparing the results of this
study with previous experiments on specificity and definiteness.
Ko et al (to appear) report on a study conducted in 2006 where they asked 20 adults
L1-Korean learners of L2-English to perform a formal written elicitation task: a cloze-test. 16
of the speakers scored as advanced on the Michigan test, and 4 learners scored as
intermediate. The participants had received English instruction before arriving in the U.S. but
had only been exposed intensely to the language when they arrived as late adolescents or
adults.
In this task, the participants were asked to fill in the missing articles in a series of
dialogues between two people. Three options were provided: the, a, or a dash representing
no article was required. The stimuli consisted of 80 English dialogues, divided into 20 context
types with 10 targeting the and 10 targeting a. Effects other than partitivity and specificity
were also investigated, but this paper reported only on the stimuli relevant to those two
features.
Partitivity was divided into explicitly partitive, such as “five dogs” or “a dog”, and
implicitly partitive, such as “a group” or “a member”. The difference between the two is stated
saying that explicitly partitive context “indicate[s] a set membership relation between a DP in
the previous discourse and the target DP” (Ko et al, p19) while implicitly partitive there is no
such indication. Previous research had concluded that there is an overuse of the definite
article in explicitly partitive context, but implicitly partitive context had not yet been
researched.
The results of the questions targeting the effects of partitivity itself are summarised in
table 8. As expected, adult L2-learners overuse the more in partitive contexts, explicit or
implicit, than in non-partitive contexts. Ko et all conclude that both explicit and implicit
19
partitivity “[trigger] the overuse of the, which in turn suggests that partitivity is a semantic
effect rather than a reflex of English morphology” (to appear, p22).
Table 8: Results overuse definite articles in indefinite contexts
Indefinite contexts
(incorrect) use of
(correct) use of a
Article omission
the
Explicit partitive
34.75%
59.0%
6.25%
Implicit partitive
30%
59.75%
10.25%
Non-partitive
6.25%
89.75%
4%
As can be seen in table 9, L2-learners most often overused the definite article when
both specificity and partitivity were positive and rarely when neither feature was present.
When only one of the features was positive, there was still a significant incorrect overuse of
the. Ko et all summarise that “given that adult L2-learners have full pragmatic knowledge
[…], the current findings provide further support for the view that overuse of the by learners is
due to semantic factors” (to appear, p23).
Table 9: Results of article (over)use
Indefinite contexts
[+partitive]
[-partitive]
(incorrect)
(correct)
Article
use of the
use of a
omission
[+specific]
38.75%
58.75%
2.5%
[-specific]
16.25%
78.75%
5%
[+specific]
30%
68.75%
1.25%
[-specific]
3.75%
93.75%
2.5%
Ko et al (to appear) conclude that acquisition of English articles by L2-learners
whose L1 lacks an article system is affected by semantic factors such as definiteness,
specificity and partitivity. In both [+partitive] and [+specific] contexts, L2-learners overuse the
20
definite article. Because L2-learner’s errors are parallel to those of L1-learners, Ko et al
conclude that these L2-learners’ errors contribute to proving that there is access to semantic
universals through UG. The question remains, however, if these findings are also parallel to
L2-learners’ errors whose L1 does have an article system and are therefore susceptible to L1
interference.
Following the research into partitivity from 2006, Ko et al (2008) investigate the effect
of partitivity on L2-English article choice with learners whose L1 does not have an article
system in another study, comparing the Korean data from the 2006 study to Serbo-Croatian
data. In this study, Ko et al (2008) hypothesize that “semantic universals are accessible to
L2-learners and that the variation in their effects is associated with L2-proficiency, not with
L1-transfer, as long as only article-less L1s are considered” (p122). In this hypothesis, they
assume that semantic universals such as definiteness, specificity and partitivity are
independent from each other; that some of these factors may carry a stronger influence than
others; and that there will be no cross-linguistic variation in applying these universals when
L1-transfer effects do not have to be taken into account due to the L1s in question not having
an article system.
The expectations were the same as in the previous research: an overuse of the in
[+partitive] contexts, but not in [-partitive contexts] unless other features such as specificity
affect the overuse of the. Ko et al (2007) add that given that semantic factors “may be
effective unequally, [they] also expect that the more advanced learners may be less
influenced by some semantic factors than others” (124). As long as proficiency is controlled,
differences between the L1-Korean group and the L1-Serbo-Croatian group should be
minimal. The prediction for article misuse is stated in table 7, repeated here for convenience
in table 10:
21
Table 10: Expected overuse of definite article in indefinite context
INDEFINITES
+partitive
-partitive
+specific
Overuse of the
Overuse of the
-specific
Overuse of the
Correct use of a
(target a)
Table 11 displays the results of error percentage per group, where SC stands for the
group of L1-Serbo-Croatian learners of L2-English. Comparing the results from the L1-SerboCroatian group to the results of the L1-Korean group shows that the Serbo-Croatian group
showed less overuse of the definite the than the Korean group, but still overused the in
[+partitive, +specific] contexts most often, namely 17,5%, which is along the lines of
expectations expressed earlier. In [-partitive, -specific] contexts there was relatively little
overuse of the, supporting the hypothesis that L2-article errors are influenced by semantic
universals instead of being random.
Table 11: Results: Overuse of the (error %) per context
INDEFINITES
+partitive
-partitive
Context (9)
Context (11)
SC: 17.5%
SC: 7.5%
Korean: 38.8%
Korean: 30%
Context (10)
Context (12)
SC: 15%
SC: 7.5%
Korean: 16.3%
Korean: 3.8%
(target a)
+specific
-specific
Ko et al conclude that both Serbo-Croatian and Korean speakers of L2-English are
affected by the semantic feature partitivity. Advanced learners of English still associated
[+partitive] features with the definite article the in English. Interestingly, the Serbo-Croatian
group was more sensitive to partitivity effects while showing barely any effect from specificity,
while the Korean speakers were affected by specificity and partitivity equally. The difference
22
between these groups cannot be explained by L1-intereference as neither language has a
system of articles or a way of encoding partitivity or specificity (Ko et al 2008, p126). Ko et al
suggest that the L1-Serbo-Croatian speakers were on average more fluent than the L1Korean speakers, and had acquired a sensitivity to specificity already. In short, Ko et al
conclude that L2-article choice is affected by the learners proficiency level, and “reflects the
learner’s access to semantic universals” (2008, p128).
Similarly, Fen-Chuan (2001) researched the acquisition of L2-English articles in L1Chinese speakers. In Mandarin Chinese, there is no system of definite and indefinite articles
that can compare to the English system. Instead, definiteness and indefiniteness are marked
by word order or demonstratives such as zhèi ‘this’, nèi ‘that’, and yi ‘one’ (Fen-Chuan, p1).
Previous studies have shown the following order of acquisition, presented in table 12.
Beginning learners of L2-English produce more correct forms of the null article Ø than the
definite the, and more correct forms of the than correct forms of the indefinite a. Intermediate
learners tend to use the definite the correctly in more contexts than the indefinite a, and a
more often in correct contexts than the null article Ø. Advanced learners show a different
order: they score higher on the use of the, followed by the null article, Ø, and finally the
indefinite a. Only scores relevant to this thesis have been shown in the table; the scores of
the [+article] group in Thomas’ research, as well as similar groups in other research not
relevant to this thesis, have been omitted.
Table 12: Acquisition orders in previous studies
Acquisition Order
Previous Study: Proficiency Level
Ø > the > a
Parrish (1987): Beginning
the > Ø > a
Thomas (1989): the [−Article] group
Yamada and Matsuura (1982): Advanced
the > a > Ø
Yamada and Matsuura (1982): Intermediate
Note. ‘>’ means ‘acquired earlier than,’ or ‘produced more accurately than.’
23
To learn more about L1-Chinese learners of L2-English’s accuracy in the acquisition of
articles, Fen-Chuan conducted research into the semantic contexts based on Bickerton
(1981) and in what contexts the articles, the, a, and Ø are overgeneralized. 55 L1-Chinese
speakers, divided into an advanced group and two levels of intermediate groups, were asked
to perform a multiple-choice cloze test. This test consisted of 58 items ranging over the four
semantic categories resulting from the combination of plus or minus definiteness and plus or
minus specificity. In this test, the participants were asked to circle the best article option,
choosing between a/an, the and Ø.
Fen-Chuan (2001) reports on the expected learning sequence in the L2 frequency of
article production and suggests the following five-stage sequential development:
Stage 1. Ø > the > a: Ø is the most frequent article, followed by the, and a is used only
occasionally.
Stage 2. Ø = the > a: Use of the is frequent enough to compete with use of Ø.
Stage 3. the > Ø > a: the becomes the most frequent, and a is still the least frequent.
Stage 4. the > Ø = a: Use of a increases and appears to be as frequent as use of Ø.
Stage 5. the > a > Ø: a becomes more frequent than Ø, but still less frequent than the.
(Fen-Chuan 2001, p6)
As seen in Thomas (1989), children are expected to go through four stages of article
acquisition. The expectations for the acquisition of English articles by speakers whose L1
does not have a system of definite/indefinite articles are that learners will go through
developmental stages similar to the expected stages of L1-English children acquiring the
articles (Thomas 1989). In L2-English, article acquisition appears to be late, due to the fact
that article choice is “complicated, context-specific, and sometimes beyond simple rules, and
that articles are usually unstressed function words and hence perceptually non-salient and
semantically light-weight” (Fen-Chuan 2001, p45). Thomas (1989) and Fen-Chuan (2001)
24
both mention the overuse of the definite article and call it “the-flooding” (Thomas 1989,
p343), but both researches also mention that there is no clear definition of a “flood”.
While Thomas (1989) does not give a specific order of acquisition, she does state that
children are expected to learn the specific definites, the group of NPs marked with the,
before mastering the indefinite a in unspecific indefinite and unspecific definite situations.
The findings of Fen-Chuan (2001) listed above in the five-stage development plan showed
that the definite article the was the first article L2-speakers acquired, followed by the
indefinite a and lastly the silent ø (p49). In this case, first and second language acquisition
would appear to be very similar.
However, Ogawa (2008) suggests another possibility, namely the effect of
countability, as nouns can be either count nouns ([+count]) or mass nouns ([-count]).
Previous comparative studies between beginning and intermediate learners, such as Parrish
(1987) and Huebner (1985), were based on longitudinal research of L2 English article use in
subjects’ spontaneous speech. These studies concluded that subjects overused the definite
the in situations that were [+specific]. Ogawa (2008) points out that it is difficult to analyse the
data from Parrish (1987) because the data of this study were based on the subjects’
spontaneous speech. Therefore, objectively judging whether an article omission error is truly
an omission or the use of a zero article is difficult. Yamada and Matsuura (1982, cited in FenChuan 2001) concur, and suggest that the cloze test “is one of the best instruments for
[analyzing article use] because the EFL learner’s proficiency is best demonstrated in reading
and writing, rather than listening and speaking” (p53).
On top of this, articles were also being analysed according to definiteness and
specificity features, but not nominal countability, namely plus or minus count and plus or
minus singular (p 136). Because of this, the participants’ use of zero articles in sentences
such as “I have ø brother”, where native speakers would use the indefinite article a, was
counted as the use of a zero article ø when this could simply be a countability error (Ogawa
2008, p. 137).
25
To research what kind of influence different noun types have on L2 learners and how
nominal countability affects the acquisition of articles, Ogawa (2008) asked advanced
Japanese EFL learners, whose proficiency was measured by a TOEIC test, to participate in a
cloze test, in which they were asked to fill in the blanks that were followed by one of three
types of NPs: singular count nouns ([+count, +singular]), plural count nouns ([+count, singular]) and mass nouns ([-count]). The questions were also divided into three types based
on specificity and definiteness. Generics, the combination [-specific, +definite], were
excluded because they allow all articles. A group of English native speakers functioned as a
control group.
The study showed that there is “no evidence for definite articles predominantly used by
EFL learners to mark [+specific] NPs,” and this shows that advanced learners “have acquired
the [+/- definite] distinction to a great degree” (Ogawa 2008, p 141), suggesting that L2English learners have access to the semantic features of definiteness and specificity.
Ogawa also concluded that EFL learners overused a/an for [-definite] mass nouns where ø
was expected, and that this indicates EFL learners “have trouble detecting nominal
countability correctly, although they have acquired the appropriate article usage based on the
[+/- definiteness] feature” (p 141). Though Ogawa (2008) argues that countability is an
influencing factor for the infelicitous use of indefinite or null articles, he does agree that the
adult L2-acquisition is guided by the underlying semantic features of definiteness and
specificity.
26
Chapter 4: Discussion
Although there is a significant amount of research on the L2-acquisition of definite
and indefinite articles, none of the few studies that take linguistic background into account is
the research conducted by Ko et al (to appear). In their study, they researched the semantics
of articles, namely specificity, definiteness and partitivity, and clearly state that the
participants had no prior instruction and barely any contact with the English language before
the age of 12. While Fen-Chuan (2008) and Ogawa (2008) agreed with the conclusion Ko et
al (to appear) draw in saying that speakers have access to the universal features of
specificity and definiteness regardless of the L1, it is not specified if the participants of her
experiments had prior instruction; it is merely stated that the participants were advanced
speakers of English with high scores on the tests that measured their fluency. Conclusions of
these studies can be used to support the acquisition order, but as it is not known how many
of the participants had received prior instruction in English these data cannot be used to
support the theory of parameter resetting in adult second language acquisition.
There are also a number of reasons that can be given to account for inconsistencies
in acquisition orders. Firstly, the data are difficult to compare as different methodological
approaches were used. Thomas (1989), Fen-Chuan (2001) and Ko et al (2006, 2008, to
appear) are most easily compared as they make use of cross-sectional studies. However,
Fen-Chuan compares the results of her study with Parrish (1987) and Yamada and Matsuura
(1982), who used a longitudinal approach. The cross-sectional approach does give an
accurate representation of the participants’ article use, its method of comparing results
between groups of speakers may not always give an accurate representation of the linguistic
development that takes place for each speaker.
Secondly, the results are difficult to compare because is no standardized method of
measuring proficiency across the studies. Fen-Chuan (2008) chose to make use of the
TOEFL-test; Ogawa (2008) used a similar test, namely the TOEIC; Thomas (1989) used a
27
one-hour, in-house placement test; Ko et al (2006; 2008; to appear) favoured the Michigan
test; Yamada and Matsuura, quoted in Fen-Chuan (2001), used the difference between high
school and college students (p49). As there is no shared placement standard for the
participants proficiency in English, differences in the acquisition order of articles could be
affected by the different divisions between intermediate and advanced learners.
Furthermore, Thomas (1989) and Fen-Chuan (2001) talk of “the-flooding” but fail to
specify what constitutes “flooding”; they mention that the definite article is overused in
incorrect situations, but it is left unclear as to what constitutes a “flood” and whether this is
significant to the contexts in which the overuse occurs.
Lastly, the languages covered by the research reviewed in this thesis have in
common that they do not have a system of definite and indefinite articles. While the research
into these various languages, namely Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Serbo-Croatian and
Russian, all reflect access to universal semantic features, it is possible that there are
linguistic idiosyncrasies underlying each language (Fen-Chuan 2001, p50, 51). Even though
the acquisition order differs across studies, the consensus is that the first article acquired and
used correctly is either the definite the or the silent ø, followed by the emergence and correct
usage of the indefinite a (Fen-Chuan 2001, p51).
28
Chapter 5: Conclusion
On the basis of experimental studies, it has been shown that L2-learners of English
often make mistakes in the article use that have proven to be non-random (Ionin, Ko &
Wexler 2004; Parrish 1987, cited in Ogawa 2008). The pattern of article misuse has received
several explanations, including L2-learners showing evidence of accessing semantic
universals through Universal Grammar (Ionin et al, 2004; Fen-Chuan, 2001; Ogawa, 2008);
and the underlying effect of another semantic universal, partitivity (Ko et al, 2006; Ko et al,
2008). Overall, even though the acquisition orders differ across studies, the first article
acquired appears to be the choice between the and Ø because a has been overwhelmingly
observed to emerge later. (Fen-Chuan, p50, 51)
According to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), there should be no access to
features of Universal Grammar after this period has passed. The resetting of parameters
would not be possible. However, this potential critical period is not taken into account; none
of the research that was mentioned (Ogawa 2008; Fen-Chuan 2001; Ko et al, 2006, 2008 &
to appear) does not specify when the participants acquired L2 English. If participants had
received prior instruction in English as children, then the conclusions that are drawn about
access to universal semantic features would not support a theory of parameter resetting.
Regardless of the level of instruction that the L2-English learners have received whilst still in
the critical period, the data from the combined research does indeed support the theory of
Universal Grammar, as the studies conclude that L2-English learners have access to
universal semantic features of definiteness and specificity.
29
Works Cited:
Amuzie, Grace Lee and Patti Spinner. Korean EFL Learners’ Indefinite Article Use with Four Types of Abstract
Nouns. Second Language Studies, Michigan State University, MI, USA.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fen-Chuan Lu, Chrystal. The Acquisition of English Articles by Chinese Learners. Second Language Studies,
20(1), Fall 2001, pp. 43-78 University of Hawai‘i
Hawkins, Roger. (2001). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. New York, Oxford: Blackwell
Ionin, Tania, Heejong Ko and Ken Wexler. Specificity As a Grammatical Notion:Evidence from L2-English Article
Use. University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2004.
Ionin, Tania, Maria Luisa Zubizaretta and Salvador Bautista Maldonado. L1-Transfer of Article Semantics in L2Acquisition. GASLA-2007.
Ionin, Tania, Soondo Baek, Eunuah Kim, Heejeong Ko and Kenneth Wexler. That’s Not So Different from The:
Definite and Demonstrative Descriptions in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research
28(1) 69–101, January 2012. slr.sagepub.com
Kaltenbacher, Martin. Universal Grammar and Parameter Resetting in Second Language Acquisition. Frankfurt
Am Main [u.a.: Lang, 2001. Print.
Ko, Heejong, Tania Ionin and Ken Wexler. L2-Acquisition of English articles by Korean speakers. to appear in
Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Korean, Cambridge University Press.
Maratsos, Michael P. The use of definite and indefinite reference in young children: an experimental study of
semantic acquisition. Cambridge U.P., 1976. XII, 144 p.
Thomas, Margaret. The Acquisition of English Articles by First- and Second-Language Learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, vol. 10, issue 03, September 1989, pp 335-355. Cambridge University Press.
30
Thomas, Margaret. Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: A History. London: Routledge, 2004.
Print.
Pilar García Mayo, María Del, and Roger Hawkins. Second Language Acquisition of Articles: Empirical Findings
and Theoretical Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub., 2009. Print.
Power, R. J. D., & Dal Martello, M. F. (1986). The use of definite and indefinite articles by Italian preschool
children. Journal of Child Language, 13, 145-154.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Warden, D. A. (1976). The influence of context on children's use of identifying expressions and references. British
Journal of Psychology, 67, 101-112.
White, L., & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 233–265.
Yamada, J., & Matsuura, N. (1982). The use of the English article among Japanese students. RELC Journal,
13(1), 50-63.
31