Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T16:42:33.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of syntactic features in formulating sentences in English as a second language by native speakers of Spanish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2016

HYE K. PAE ,
DAPHNE GREENBERG ,
NICOLE TAYLOR ,
JACQUELINE LAURES-GORE  and
LIDIA YVETTE QUINONES
HYE K. PAE*
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
DAPHNE GREENBERG
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
NICOLE TAYLOR
Affiliation:
Spelman College
JACQUELINE LAURES-GORE
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
LIDIA YVETTE QUINONES
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
*
† Address for correspondence: Hye K. Pae, PhD, School of Education, PO Box 210022, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 4221-0022. tel: 513-556-7112; fax: 513-556-1001; e-mail: hye.pae@uc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

abstract

This study examined how native speakers of Spanish formulated sentences in English as a second language (L2) when randomly ordered words were orally presented. Participants included 206 adult literacy students (70 native Spanish speakers and 136 native English speakers) whose word reading equivalency was at third- through fifth-grade levels. The Word Ordering subtest of the Test of Language Development-3 was administered. Although they showed a similar pattern of performance in the sentence type (i.e., declarative, interrogative, or imperative sentence), the two groups showed a different pattern in the misuse of syntactic features. Pertaining to grammatical features, verbs were the most difficult item for the native speakers of Spanish. The findings of this study were explained through the intricate nature of English verbs as well as unique lexicalization patterns resulting from the typological difference between Spanish and English.

Keywords

sentence formulationnative speakers of Spanishsyntactic featuresverbssecond language

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 501 - 524
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

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

Footnotes

*

This study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute for Literacy, and the US Department of Education – grant # R01 HD43801. We appreciate the anonymous reviewers’ constructive comments.

References

references

Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339–356.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.) (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J. K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1, 1–37.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Schachter, J. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language learning (pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 245–276.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216.Google Scholar
Collins, L. (2007). L1 differences and L2 similarities: teaching verb tenses in English. ELT Journal, 61, 295–303.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2013). Constructing causation in language and memory: implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. Journal of Speech, Language, and the Law, 20, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folse, K. S. (2009). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Ozyurek, A., Sancar, B., & Mylander, C. (2009). Making language around the globe: a crosslinguistic study of Homesign in the United States, China and Turkey. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., & Ozcaliskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 27–39). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hanmill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. (1997). Examiner’s Manual Test of Language Development-Intermediate, 3rd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., & Champaud, C. (2009). Typological constraints on motion in French and English child language. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., & Ozcaliskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 209–224). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369–397.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2012). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antunano, I. (2009). Path salience in motion event. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K., & Ozcaliskan, S. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language (pp. 403–414). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kattán-Ibarra, J., & Pountain, C. J. (2003). Modern Spanish grammar: a practical guide, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kondo, T. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 129–161.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Valenzuela, E., & Diaz, L. (1999). L1/L2 Spanish grammars and the pragmatic deficit hypothesis. Second Language Research, 15, 161–190.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 487–536). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mannel, C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Intonational phrase structure processing at different stages of syntax acquisition: ERP studies in 2-, 3-, and 6-year old children. Developmental Science, 14(4), 786–798.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2005). On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2 acquisition. Linguistics, 43, 1153–1190.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: a study of syntactic development in children adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048–1064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279–304.Google Scholar
Pae, H. K., Schanding, B., Kwon, Y.-J., & Lee, Y.-W. (2014). Animacy effect and language specificity: judgment of unaccusative verbs by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 187–207.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb–argument constructions: effects of language transfer and typology. Modern Language Journal, 98, 952–975.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: their forms and meaning (pp. 195–219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: evidence from second-language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114–1128.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structures in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. E. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. In Sutton, L. S., Johnson, C., & Shields, R. (Eds.), Papers of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 480–520). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science, 11(1), 84–97.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar