Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T21:09:35.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Interactionist Approach to L2 Sentence Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Susan M. Gass
Susan M. Gass
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Knowledge of a second language includes knowledge of syntax, phonology, lexicon, and so forth. While there is no a priori reason to assume that abilities in these areas develop independently of one another, most studies dealing with the acquisition of L2 grammars treat each of these components singly. In fact, Long and Sato (1984) call for more studies investigating the ways in which grammatical components interact in the acquisition of a second language. This paper deals with the complex issue of sentence processing in an L2, showing how L2 learners resolve the problem of competing factors of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in the processing of L2 utterances. We present the results of a study involving sentence interpretation of compex sentences by 111 L2 learners of English and suggest that the acquisition of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics is an interactive phenomenon. It is further suggested that part of learning the syntax of a language is not only learning the word-order configurations of the language, but also learning the importance of word order in a given language in relation to semantic and pragmatic factors.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 19 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ard, J. 1983. Towards an applied phonology. Paper presented at the Conference on the Uses of Phonology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Avery, P., Ehrlich, S., and Yorio, C.. 1985. Prosodic domains in foreigner talk discourse. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bales, E. & MacWhinney, B.. 1979. A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (eds.). Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bales, E. & MacWhinney, B.. 1981. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Gleitman, L. and Wanner, E. (eds.), Language acquisition, the state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., and Smith, S.. 1982. Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11; 245–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, G. 1983. Control judgments by deaf adults and by second language learners. Language Learning 33; 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaerts, T. 1983. The comprehension of three complex structures by Dutch learners. Language Learning 33; 159–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, C. 1969. The acquisition of syntax in children from 5–10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. 1972. Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review 42; 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1984. Why linguists need language acquirers. In Rutherford, W. (ed.). Second language acquisition and language universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cooper, R., Olshtain, E., Tucker, G., and Waterbury, M.. 1979. The acquisition of complex English structures by adult native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Language Learning 29; 255–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Anglejan, A. and Tucker, G.. 1975. The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning 25; 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. 1977. Grundfragen der morphophonologie. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1984. The empirical basis for the universal hypothesis in IL studies. In Davies, A., Criper, C., and Howatt, A. P. R. (eds.), Interlanguage: Papers in honor of S. Pit Corder. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1985. A bidirectional approach to second language acquisition. Paper presented at Jerusalem Conference on TEFL-TESOL, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Ard, J.. 1980. L2 data, their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly 14; 443– 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. 1984. Second language acquisition and the ontology of language universals. In Rutherford, W. (ed.), Second language acquisition and language universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givon, T. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkinson, A. and Hyman, L.. 1974. Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona, Studies in African Linguistics 5; 147–70.Google Scholar
Kumpf, L. 1982. An analysis of tense, aspect and modality in interlanguage. Paper presented at TESOL Conference, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Sato, C.. 1984. Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In Davies, A., Criper, C., & Howatt, A. P. R. (eds.), Interlanguage: Papers in honor of S. Pit Corder. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1977. Starting points. Language 53; 152–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1982. Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language acquisition: Volume I. Syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morolong, M. and Hyman, L.. 1977. Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho, Studies in African Linguistics 8; 199–217.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1980. Contrastive studies and acquisition theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Contrastive Projects, Charzykowy, Poland.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.), A cross-linguistic perspective for second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar