Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:36:45.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epilogue: A tale of two copulas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

EVE ZYZIK  and
SUSAN GASS
EVE ZYZIK
Affiliation:
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USAzyzik@msu.edu
SUSAN GASS
Affiliation:
English Language Center, A 714 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USAgass@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The five papers in this issue cover a range of perspectives on the acquisition and use of the Spanish copulas ser and estar in a variety of contexts, including language contact, bilingual language acquisition, and classroom second language learning. The fact that these papers cite work in this area as far back as the early part of the 20th century with each subsequent decade being represented suggests the continual importance and complexity of the distinction between the two copular forms and shows how this complexity is played out in acquisition and bilingual use. Over the past century different perspectives have been taken on this multifaceted issue with linguistic explanations and the role of the native language being primary. In this epilogue, we focus on some of these same issues, but expand our commentary to include the new dimensions represented in this collection of papers: (i) context of learning (input), (ii) prior knowledge as represented by other language(s) known, (iii) item-learning and lexical development, and (iv) innovations in methodology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 3: LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, BILINGUALISM AND COPULA CHOICE IN SPANISH , November 2008 , pp. 383 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose & Kasper (eds.), pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. 1981. Item-learning and system-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1999. Item versus system learning: Explaining free variation. Applied Linguistics, 20, 460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introductory course. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2005. The acquisition of copula choice in instructed Spanish: The role of individual characteristics. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of the Hispanic languages: Papers from the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, pp. 66–77. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2006. The second language acquisition of variable structures in Spanish by Portuguese speakers. Language Learning, 56, 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B. 2001. Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In Cenoz, J., Hufesein, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 21–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkes, T. 1974. Early stages in the non-native acquisition of English syntax: A study of three children from Zaire, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 2001. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Rose & Kasper (eds.), pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Rose, K. & Kasper, G. (eds.) 2001. Pragmatics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. 1982. A direction for contrastive analysis: The comparative study of developmental sequences. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar