Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:18:56.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Form–meaning mappings in the aspectual domain: What about the L1? A response to Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

SILVINA MONTRUL*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Linguistics Department, 4080 Foreign Language Building, 707 S Mathews Avenue, MC-168, Urbana, IL 61801, USAmontrul@uiuc.edu

Extract

Any person who has taught Spanish as a second language or who has interacted with a non-native speaker of Spanish can easily tell that mastering the correct use of the copulas ser and estar is very difficult in both spoken and written production. But L2 learners are not alone. The Spanish copulas also present difficulty and frustration for L2 instructors of Spanish, since most pedagogical explanations of the uses of ser and estar provided in textbooks are incomplete and inaccurate. However, the acquisition of copular constructions has not received the attention it deserves in the acquisition literature, making a special issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition dedicated to this topic particularly welcome. A reason for the scarcity of research in this area may be related to both the linguistic complexity of Spanish ser and estar and the inadequacy of many available theoretical treatments to explain their complementary distribution. Although constructions with ser and estar are highly frequent in the input, they are grammatically quite intricate, straddling between the levels of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Accordingly, Bruhn de Garavito and Valenzuela correctly frame their study within the current debate on interface vulnerability in language development in general, and in adult L2 acquisition in particular (Sorace, 2004; White, in press). In a nutshell, grammatical areas which require the integration of different levels of linguistic knowledge (e.g., syntax–discourse, syntax–morphology, morphology–semantics, etc.) for processing, production, or interpretation, show developmental delays and instability in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. In the case of monolingual acquisition, instability or non-target-like behavior is temporary, but in L2 grammars, instability can persist up to very advanced levels of proficiency, eventually leading to fossilization.

Type
Research Article
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

Giorgi, A. & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luján, M. (1981). The Spanish copulas as aspectual indicators. Lingua, 54, 165210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2002). Acquiring morphosyntactic and semantic properties of aspectual tenses in L2 Spanish. In Pérez-Léroux, A-T. & Liceras, J. (eds.), The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax: The L1/L2 connection, pp. 131149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25 (3), 351398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roby, D. (2007). Aspect and the categorization of states: The case of ser and estar in Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. (1992). Ser and estar: A matter of aspect. NELS, 22, 411425.Google Scholar
Schmitt, C. & Miller, K. (2007). Making discourse-dependent decisions: The case of the copulas ser and estar in Spanish. Lingua, 117, 19071929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2002). Aspectual tenses in L2 Spanish: A UG perspective. In Salaberry, R. & Shirai, Y. (eds.), Tense–aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, pp. 359391. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2003). Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition, 11 (3), 165196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental stability at the syntax–discourse interface: Data, interpretation and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 142145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (in press). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA Academic Press.Google Scholar