Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T18:38:47.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension of grammatically modified and nonmodified sentences by second language learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Diana C. Issidorides  and
Jan H. Hulstijn
Diana C. Issidorides
Affiliation:
Free University Amsterdam
Jan H. Hulstijn*
Affiliation:
Free University Amsterdam
*
Jan H. Hulstijn, Applied Linguistics Department, Free University Amsterdam, 1105 De Bodelaan, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e-mail: hulstyn@let.vu.nl.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At issue in the present research is whether native speakers' “simplified” or modified utterances, as in foreigner-talk (FT), actually facilitate comprehension for nonnative speakers hearing such utterances. It was hypothesized that (grammatical) Dutch inversion sentences (AdvVSO) that have proven to be problematic in studies on Dutch second language (L2) acquisition - as reflected both in the (ungrammatical) output of L2 learners and in the (ungrammatical) FT input to L2 learners - would not be problematic in terms of comprehension, when compared with modified, ungrammatical AdvSVO and AdvSOV sentences, as long as such sentences do not express an implausible state of affairs. Three subject groups participated in the experiment: 20 English and 22 Turkish L2 learners of Dutch and 30 Dutch native speakers (control group). Subjects heard and interpreted declarative Dutch sentences, in which word order (NVN, VNN, NNV) and animacy configurations (Al [i.e., animate/inanimate], AA, LA) were systematically manipulated. Subjects had to name the noun (first or second) that functions as actor/subject of the sentence. Positive evidence was found for the hypotheses. It is concluded from the present study, as well as from a previous study (Issidorides, 1988), that linguistically more complex input will not necessarily impede comprehension. The fact that normative speakers have difficulties in producing a certain grammatical structure (e.g., the AdvVSO structure) does not imply that such a structure is also more difficult to understand in the speech of others.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 147 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Appel, R. (1984). Immigrant children learning Dutch: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univeriity of Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, B. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and their effects on L2 learners' recognition and recall. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. M., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweilsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausldndischer Arbeiter. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clark, B. V., & Hecht, B. F. (1983). Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 325–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. G. (Ed.). (1982). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28 [Special issue: Foreigner Talk].Google Scholar
DeBot, K. Bot, K., & Janssen–Van, Dieten A. M. (1984). Het onderwijs Nederlands aan Turkse en Marokkaanse leerlingen: Een poging tot evaluatie. [The instruction of Dutch to Turkish and Moroccan pupils: An evaluation attempt]. Levende Talen, 395, 520–525.Google Scholar
DeBot, K. Bot, K.& VanMontfort, R. Montfort, R. (1988). “Cue-validity’ in het Nederlands als eerste en tweede taal [Cue validity in Dutch as a first and second language]. Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekst wet enschap, 8, 111–120.Google Scholar
DeJager, A. Jager, A., & Sainplonius, J. (1986). Zinsimitatie Toets [Sentence Imitation Test]. Report of the Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
De Praatkist: Een intercultureelpakket voor het leren van mondeling Nederlands [The Speaking Kit: An intercultural course for the acquisition of oral Dutch]. Den Bosch, Netherlands: Malmberg.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. L. (1968). Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics. 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1989). Language universals and second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 39, 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Howell, D. C. (1982). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1982). Monitor use by adult second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1984). Difficulties in the acquisition of two word order rules by adult learners of Dutch. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processing. Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1990). A comparison between the information-processing and the analysis/control approaches to language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issidorides, D. C. (1988). The discovery of a miniature linguistic system: Function words and comprehension of an unfamiliar language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issidorides, D. C. (1991). A Rose by any other name…: An experimental psycholinguistic study of Dutch sentence comprehension by adult non-native listeners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jansen, B., Lalleman, J., & Muysken, P. (1981). The alternation hypothesis: Acquisition of Dutch word order by Turkish and Moroccan foreign workers. Language Learning, 31, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordens, P. (1988). The acquisition of word order in L2 Dutch and German. In Jordens, P. & Lalleman, J. (Eds.), Language development. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Cooreman, A. (1987). Sentence interpretation strategies in adult Dutch–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleifgen, J. A. (1985). Skilled variation in a kindergarten teacher's use of foreigner talk. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1975). Dutch as an SVO language. LinguisticAnalysis, 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. In d'Anglejan, A. (Ed.), Native speakers' reactions to approximative systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2) [Special issue].CrossRefGoogle 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
McDonald, J. L. (1986). The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987a). Assigning linguistic roles: The influence of conflicting cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1987b). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (1989). The acquisition of cue-category mappings. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In Felix, S. W. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, C. E., VanEeden, R. Eeden, R., & Muysken, P. (1981). The interactional origins of foreigner talk: Municipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 81–91.Google Scholar
Van, Helvert K. (1985). Nederlands van en tegen Turkse kinderen [Dutch spoken by and addressed to Turkish children]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Van, Montfort R. (1986). Het REMAR-2 experiment. Een onderzoek naar cue-validity van vreemdetaalsprekers [The REMAR-2 experiment: An investigation into cue validity for foreign language learners]. Master's thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar