Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-26T22:10:49.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

APTITUDE AS GRAMMATICAL SENSITIVITY AND THE INITIAL STAGES OF LEARNING JAPANESE AS A L2

Parametric Variation and Case Marking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

Bill VanPatten*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Megan Smith
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bill VanPatten, Romance and Classical Studies, Michigan State University, B-330 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: bvp@msu.edu

Abstract

In this article, we challenge the notion that aptitude—operationalized as grammatical sensitivity as measured by the Words in Sentences section of the Modern Language Aptitude Test—is central to adult second language (L2) acquisition. We present the findings of a study on the acquisition of two properties of Japanese, head-final word order and case marking, by naïve learners of Japanese as a L2 who had no prior knowledge of this language or any other head-final, case-marking language. Participants underwent an input treatment in which they heard and saw basic subject-object-verb sentences in Japanese and were subsequently tested on these basic sentences and also on sentences to which they were not exposed during the treatment (i.e., polar questions and embedded clauses). Reading times on grammatical and ungrammatical sentences served as measures of underlying sensitivity to violations of grammatical word order for both the basic sentences and the novel sentences. Our results yielded three groups of learners: those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order, polar questions, and embedded clauses (parameter reset); those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order and polar questions only (partial parameter reset); and those who showed sensitivity to violations of basic word order only (no parameter reset). Because our measure of aptitude as grammatical sensitivity did not emerge as a factor distinguishing the three groups from one another, we argue that this component of aptitude is not a factor in whether learners are able to reset parameters. We also found that all participants, regardless of group, demonstrated sensitivity to case-marking violations, suggesting that aptitude as grammatical sensitivity plays no role in the acquisition of underlying features related to case or to the surface-level markings of case in Japanese.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Dale, P. S., & Thal, D. (1996). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 96152). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. & Schacter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 4168). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 349.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175198.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011a). Approaching parameters from below. In Di Sciullo, A. & Boeckx, C. (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 205221). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (Ed.) (2011b). The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. C. (Eds.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cedrus, Corporation. (2014). SuperLab (Version 4.5) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.superlab.com/Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. The Hague, the Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205234.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499533.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 390405.Google Scholar
Henshaw, F. (2011). Effects of feedback timing in SLA: A computer assisted study on the Spanish subjunctive. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 8599). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2010). Null subject parameters. In Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., & Sheehan, M. (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (pp. 88124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531574.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129140.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J., Brandl, A., & Weissglass, C. (2011). Task effects in sentence processing research. In Trofimovich, P. & McDonough, K. (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 179198). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., Johnson, E., & Zárate-Sández, G. (2011). Getting a grip on the slippery construct of awareness: Toward a finer grained methodological perspective. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 6172). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama/llama_manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Obler, L. (1989). Exceptional language learners. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic issues (pp. 141159). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2011). Case. In Boeckx, C. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp. 5272). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G., & Reiss, C. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303358). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 113133). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256286). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, S., Yoshinaga, N., & Sasaki, M. (2002). Aptitude-exposure interaction effects on wh-movement violation detection by pre-and-post-critical period Japanese bilinguals. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 267299). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319353). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133160.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 4072.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 6993). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381395). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, M., & VanPatten, B. (2013). Instructed SLA as parameter setting: Evidence from earliest-stage learners of Japanese as L2. In Laval, C., Arche, M. J., & Benati, A. (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 127146). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2011). Stubborn syntax: How it resists explicit teaching and learning. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processing, and knowledge (pp. 921). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Borst, S., Collopy, E., Qualin, A., & Price, J. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. Modern Language Journal, 97, 506527.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Leeser, M. J. (2012). Missing verbal inflections as a representational issue: Evidence from on-line methodology. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 109140.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J. (2013). Against “rules.” In Benati, A., Laval, C., & Arche, M. J. (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1535). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J. (in press). What does current generative theory suggest about the explicit-implicit debate? In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In Diller, K. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar