Age of acquisition and proficiency as factors in language production:
Agreement in bilinguals
Rebecca Foote (rkphilli@uiuc.edu)
February 21, 2007
I.
Central question in SLA
a. Why is the outcome of second language acquisition different from that of first
language acquisition?
II.
Age effects in language acquisition
a. Critical period hypothesis
III.
Agreement production in bilinguals
a. Variability in production of agreement morphology in late bilinguals (L2 learners)
b. Two sources for problem
i. Deficit in linguistic knowledge
ii. Psycholinguistic processes of language production
c. Early bilingual agreement production
IV.
Subject-verb number agreement production in Spanish and English
a. Verb number controlled by number of subject noun phrase
b. Other factors that influence agreement production
i. Grammatical number of the subject noun phrase
ii. Notional or conceptual number of the subject noun phrase
iii. Attraction
iv. Conceptual number and attraction working together
V.
Cross-linguistic differences in subject-verb number agreement production
a. English – grammatical number
b. Spanish – grammatical and conceptual number
VI.
Maximalist model of agreement production (Vigliocco, Butterworth, & Garrett, 1996)
a. Interactive model that assumes a language production system with various levels
or steps (Levelt, 1989; 1999)
b. Information across levels or steps is shared throughout the system
c. Accounts for cross-linguistic differences in agreement production by proposing
different mechanisms of agreement for different languages
i. English – feature copying
ii. Spanish – feature unification
d. How do these cross-linguistic differences in the mechanisms of agreement
production play out in bilinguals?
1
VII.
Experiment 1 – Agreement production in English and Spanish monolinguals
VIII.
Experiment 1 – Research question
a. Are there differences in the mechanics of subject-verb number agreement
production in Mexican Spanish, Dominican Spanish, and English?
IX.
Experiment 1
a. Participants
i. English monolinguals (n = 18)
ii. Mexican Spanish monolinguals (n = 32)
iii. Dominican Spanish monolinguals (n = 28)
b. Materials
c. Experimental stimuli
d. Procedure
X.
Experiment 1 – Results
a. Monolinguals
Net Error Rates by Fragment Type
50
45
40
35
30
Single
25
Distributive
20
15
10
5
0
English
Mexican Spanish
Dominican Spanish
XI.
Experiment 1 – Research question revisited
a. Are there differences in the mechanics of subject-verb number agreement
production in Mexican Spanish, Dominican Spanish, and English?
i. NO…All three languages/dialects evidence conceptual effects in
agreement production
XII.
Experiment 1 – Discussion
a. English, Dominican Spanish, and Mexican Spanish all show sensitivity to
conceptual number in agreement production
b. In terms of the maximalist model, all three effect agreement by means of feature
unification
2
XIII.
Experiment 2 – Agreement production in English-Spanish bilinguals
XIV. Experiment 2 – Research questions
a. Do English-Spanish bilinguals produce subject-verb number agreement in the
same manner in both languages?
b. What role do age of acquisition and proficiency play in bilingual agreement
production?
i. Manner
ii. Accuracy
XV.
Experiment 2
a. Participants – English-Spanish bilinguals
i. Early-intermediate (n = 16)
ii. Early-advanced (n = 22)
iii. Late-intermediate (n = 52)
iv. Late-advanced (n = 18)
b. Materials
c. Experimental stimuli
d. Procedure
XVI. Experiment 2 – Results (Manner)
a. English
Net error rates by fragment type - English
35
30
25
20
Single
Distributive
15
10
5
0
Early-Intermediate
Early-Advanced
Late-Intermediate
Late-Advanced
3
b. Spanish
Net error rates by fragment type - Spanish
35
30
25
20
Single
Distributive
15
10
5
0
Early-Intermediate
Early-Advanced
Late-Intermediate
Late-Advanced
XVII. Experiment 2 – Research questions revisited (Manner)
a. Do English-Spanish bilinguals produce subject-verb number agreement in the
same manner in both languages?
i. YES
b. What role do age of acquisition and proficiency play in bilingual agreement
production?
i. Manner
1. NONE…all groups are sensitive to conceptual number in both
Spanish and English
XVIII. Experiment 2 – Discussion (Manner)
a. Results support NO cross-linguistic differences in how bilinguals produce
agreement…conceptual number affects agreement processes in both English and
Spanish regardless of age of acquisition or proficiency level
b. In terms of the maximalist model, bilinguals effect agreement by means of feature
unification in both of their languages, no matter the AoA or proficiency level
4
XIX. Experiment 2 – Results (Accuracy)
a. Age of acquisition
Overall Agreement Error Rates
Early vs. Late Bilinguals
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
English
Spanish
Early Bilinguals
Late Bilinguals
b. Proficiency
Overall Agreement Error Rates
Intermediate vs. Advanced Bilinguals
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
English
Intermediate Bilinguals
XX.
Spanish
Advanced Bilinguals
Experiment 2 – Research questions revisited (Accuracy)
a. What role do age of acquisition and proficiency play in agreement production in
English-Spanish bilinguals’ two languages?
i. More proficient bilinguals are more accurate, no matter whether late or
early
ii. Early bilinguals are less accurate than late bilinguals
5
XXI. Experiment 2 – Discussion (Accuracy)
a. Advanced proficiency bilinguals more accurate than intermediate proficiency
bilinguals
b. Early bilinguals NOT more accurate than late bilinguals…other way around.
i. Contrary to an across-the-board interpretation of the CPH
XXII. Central question in SLA
a. Why is the outcome of second language (L2) acquisition different from that of
first language (L1) acquisition?
b. The aspects of the agreement production system investigated are not responsible
for the variability at the level of inflectional morphology present in bilinguals
c. Is there really a problem with morphological variability in late bilingual
agreement production?
i. Subject-verb number agreement vs. adjective agreement
XXIII. Conclusion
a. Age effects in second language acquisition should be investigated in terms of
specific linguistic structures or psycholinguistic processes
b. Younger may not always be better!
References
Beck, M. L. (1998). L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of
German and the local impairment hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
20, 311-348.
Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Whys and why nots of the Critical Period Hypothesis for
Second Language Acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.). Second language acquisition and
the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A.(1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23, 45-93.
Eubank, L. (1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In T. Hoekstra & B.
Schwartz (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar (pp. 369-388).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fernández, E. M. (1999). Processing strategies in second language acquisition. In E. Klein & G.
Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: a generative
approach. (pp. 217-239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C.Y. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second
language acquisition: The ‘Failed Functional Features Hypothesis.’ Second Language
Research, 13(3), 187-226.
Kohnert, K.J., Bates, E., & Hernandez, A.E. (1999). Balancing bilinguals: Lexical-semantic
production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(6), 1400-1413.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the fossilized steady state. Second Language Research
14, 1-26.
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar.
Second Language Research 14, 359-375.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6
Levelt, W.J.M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C.M. Brown
& P. Hagoort (Eds.). The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meisel, J. (1990). Grammatical development in the simultaneous acquisition of two languages.
In J. Meisel (Ed.), Two first languages: Early grammatical development in bilingual
children, 89-130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meisel, J. (1997). The L2 basic variety as an I-language. Second Language Research, 13(4), 374385.
Montrul, S. (2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in
adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5, 1, 39-68.
Nicol, J., & Greth, D. (2003). Production of subject-verb agreement in Spanish as a second
language. Experimental Psychology 50(3), 196-203.
Nicol, J., Teller, M., & Greth, D. (2001). The production of verb agreement in monolingual,
bilingual, and second language speakers. In J. L. Nicol (Ed.). One Mind, Two Languages:
Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 103133.
Schachter, J. (1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.). Linguistic
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 73-88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 6(2), 93-124.
Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and
English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition 61, 261-298.
7