Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:01:53.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISSOCIABLE SYSTEMS IN SECOND LANGUAGE INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Victoria A. Murphy
Victoria A. Murphy
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pinker and Prince (1988) argued that two dissociable systems underlie the development of linguistic representations: one rule governed and the other associative. These two dissociable systems of representation and processing are claimed to be a linguistic universal (Pinker, 1999). Therefore, one should expect that nonnative speakers of a language also manifest the same kinds of dissociations in performance between rule-based and associative features of language as native speakers. The study reported here extends the work of Prasada and Pinker (1993) into the second language (L2) domain to test whether nonnative speakers (a) perform similarly to native speakers and (b) dissociate rule-based from associative features of language. In Prasada and Pinker, the degree of similarity between a nonce verb and a real English verb influenced past-tense generalizations on nonce irregular verbs but did not influence generalizations on nonce regular verbs. In the experiment reported here, first language (L1) and L2 participants of different ages and language groups were compared on the same task as that used by Prasada and Pinker. Participants overall produced more verbs with a past-tense suffix for nonce regular items than for the nonce irregular items. Significant group effects indicate that participants' varying levels of experience with English play an important role in their past-tense productions of nonce verbs. Furthermore, similarity influenced both the regular and irregular verbs on a production task. These results are discussed in terms of whether there are two dissociable systems underlying L2 linguistic knowledge and whether an alternative single associative learning mechanism could be responsible for the development of the system of regular and irregular inflectional morphology in both L1 and L2 learning.This research was partly funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant (no. 752-94-1808). I appreciate the help of Jennifer Graham in collecting the data and am grateful to Nick Ellis, Nina Spada, Lydia White, and five anonymous SSLA reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 433 - 459
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of a cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., Friederici, A., & Wulfeck, B. (1987). Comprehension in aphasia: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 19–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (1991). Connectionism and the mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
Beck, M.-L. (1997). Regular verbs, past tense, and frequency: Tracking down a potential source of NS/NNS competence differences. Second Language Research, 13, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A., & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 228–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Clahsen, H. (1995). German plurals in adult second language development: Evidence for a dual-mechanism model of inflection. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 123–137). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Clark, A. (1989). Microcognition: Philosophy, cognitive science, and parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cowan, N. (1992). Verbal memory span and the timing of spoken recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. (1997). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowan, N., Keller, T. A., Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., McDougall, S., & Rack, J. (1994). Verbal memory span in children: Speech timing clues to the mechanisms underlying age and word length effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1998). Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In S. Pinker & J. Mehler (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp. 3–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hahn, U., & Nakisa, R. C. (2000). German inflection: Single route or dual route? Cognitive Psychology, 41, 313–360.Google Scholar
Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Daugherty, K. G. (1995). Default generalisation in connectionist networks. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1995). L2 acquisition of English synthetic compounding is not constrained by level-ordering (and neither, probably, is L1). Second Language Research, 11, 20–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B. P. H. (1994). Generalisation of regular and irregular inflectional patterns: Towards a language processing model for both native and non-native speakers of English. Cambridge University Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics, 1, 15–33.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1993). Connections and symbols: Closing the gap. Cognition, 49, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1994). The dinosaurs and the ring. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 283–320). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, V. A. (2000). Compounding and the representation of L2 morphology. Language Learning, 50, 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakisa, R. C., & Hahn, U. (1996). Where defaults don't help: The case of the German plural system. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 177–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Pinker, S., & Mehler, J. (Eds.). (1988). Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1994). Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In S. D. Lima, R. L. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (Eds.), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 321–351). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V. (1991). U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perceptron: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition, 38, 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Nakisa, R. C. (1997). A connectionist model of the Arabic plural system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 807–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: Why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 45–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 45–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stemberger, J. P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition, 14, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 15, 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.Google Scholar