Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:22:09.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2010

Susan M. Gass
Susan M. Gass*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
Susan M. Gass, Department of English, Morrill Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the interaction of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics from the perspective of functional constraints on sentence processing. The functionalist model of Bates and Mac-Whinney (1981a, 1987) is taken as a basis for investigating subjects' reactions to sentences in which word order, topic, and animacy are varied. Subjects were native speakers of Italian, a language which is sensitive to semantics for interpretation and English, a language which is sensitive to syntax for interpretation (Bates, McNew, MacWhinney, Devescovi, & Smith, 1982). The two native speaker groups were further subdivided in terms of second versus foreign language learners. This study focusses on the question of how learners move from one organizational system to another. It is argued that the ways in which L2 learners are able to determine the strength of dominant factors provides insights not only into the processes involved in L2 acquisition but also into the relative strength of components crosslinguistically and the strength of boundaries between linguistic and extra-linguistic information. The results suggest that in moving from a semantic-dominant language to a syntactic-dominant one, learners first become aware of the importance of the concept of word order in a second language before being able to determine the specifics of word order in that language. On the other hand, moving in the other direction (from syntactic to semantic dominance) seems to come about with greater ease. To account for these results, a prototype model of acquisition is introduced. Finally, differences between second language and foreign language-learning environments are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1987 , pp. 329 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Avery, P., Ehrlich, S., & Yorio, C. (1985). Prosodic domains in foreigner talk discourse. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981a). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981b). Second-language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S., (1982). Functional constraints on sentence-processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245–299.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (in press). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165–180.Google Scholar
Camarata, S. & Leonard, L. (1986). Young children pronounce object words more accurately than action words. Journal of Child Language, 13, 51–65.Google Scholar
Camarata, S., & Schwartz, R. (1985). Production of action words and object words: Evidence for a relationship between semantics and phonology. JSHR, 28, 323–330.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., House, J., Kasper, G., & Stemmer, B. (1984). Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report. Applied Linguistics, 5, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. (1980). Phonetic approximation in second language learning. Language Learning, 30, 117–134.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1983). The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 273–291.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1984a). The empirical basis for the universal hypothesis in interlanguage studies. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1984b). Development of speech perception and speech production abilities in adult second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 51–74.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1986). An interactionist approach to L2 sentence interpretation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 19–37.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1984). L2 acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and language universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Universlas of language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. & Tannen, D. (1979). Individual and social differences in language use. In Fillmore, C., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60, 703–752.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In Davies, A., Criper, C. & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. (in press). Sentence interpretation processing in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic studies of sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. In Rosenzweig, M. & Porter, L. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.Google Scholar
Obler, L. (1982). The parsimonious bilingual. In Obler, L. & Menn, L. (Eds.), Exceptional language and linguistics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977a). Classification of real-world objects: Origins and representation in cognition. In Johnson-Laird, P. & Warren, P. (Eds.), Thinking: readings in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977b). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Wulfeck, B. B., Juarez, L., Bates, E. A., & Kilborn, K. (1986). In Vaid, S. (Ed.), Language Processing in Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1984). Aspects of reference and the pronominal syntax preference in the speech of young child L2 learners. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar