Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T14:33:10.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2014

STEFANIE WULFF ,
NICHOLAS LESTER  and
MARIA T. MARTINEZ-GARCIA
STEFANIE WULFF*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
NICHOLAS LESTER
Affiliation:
University of California at Santa Barbara
MARIA T. MARTINEZ-GARCIA
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
*Address for correspondence: Stefanie Wulff, University of Florida, Linguistics Department, Turlington Hall 4015, Gainesville, FL 32611-5454. e-mail: swulff@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In certain English finite complement clauses, inclusion of the complementizer that is optional. Previous research has identified various factors that influence when native speakers tend to produce or omit the complementizer, including syntactic weight, clause juncture constraints, and predicate frequency. The present study addresses the question to what extent German and Spanish learners of English as a second language (L2) produce and omit the complementizer under similar conditions. 3,622 instances of English adjectival, object, and subject complement constructions were retrieved from the International Corpus of English and the German and Spanish components of the International Corpus of Learner English. A logistic regression model suggests that L2 learners’ and natives’ production is largely governed by the same factors. However, in comparison with native speakers, L2 learners display a lower rate of complementizer omission. They are more impacted by processing-related factors such as complexity and clause juncture, and less sensitive to verb-construction cue validity.

Keywords

Complementationlearner languagecorpus linguisticssyntactic weightclause junctureverb-construction association strength

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 271 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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

Real Academia Española (2005). Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, online: <http://lema.rae.es/dpd/>..>Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). That’s that. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carrol, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357−386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: an ESL/EFL teacher’s course, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Dor, D. (2005). Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics, 43 (2), 345−382.Google Scholar
Durham, M. (2011). I think (that) something’s missing: complementizer deletion in nonnative e-mails. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (3), 421−445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellinger, J. (1933). Substantivsätze mit oder ohne that in der neueren englischen Literatur. Anglia, 57, 78–109.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2007). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories of second language acquisition: an introduction (pp. 77−95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use? In Gries, St. Th., & Divjak, D. S. (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing (pp. 7−34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Constructions and their acquisition: islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188−221.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370−385.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of objective clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 65, 519−533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, H. (1965). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all: what corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocation by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55 (30), 273−291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, , St., Th. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23−62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jespersen, O. H. (1954). A modern English grammar on historical principles: Part III: syntax (second volume). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kirkby, J. (1971[1746]). A new English grammar (Reprint). Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2013). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages. In Bhatia, T., & Ritchie, W. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, 2nd ed. (pp. 216–243). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Gollan, T. H. (in press). Speech planning in two languages: what bilinguals tell us about language production. In Ferreira, V., Goldrick, M., & Miozzo, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Rodríguez Louro, C. (2006). Beyond the syntax of the null subject parameter: a look at the discourse-pragmatic distribution of null and overt subjects by L2 learners of Spanish. In Escobar, L., & Torrens, V. (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 401−418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417−528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J., and Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191−225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1929). A grammar of late modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (2000). The complexity principle as a factor determining grammatical variation and change in English. In Plag, I., & Schneider, K. P. (Eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history: (mostly) empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann (pp. 25−44). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax−pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951−973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics, 31 (2), 301−306.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (4), 110−114.Google Scholar
Storms, G. (1966). That-clauses in Modern English. English Studies, 47, 249−270.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, J. (2005). No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 9 (2), 289−309.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. J. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 237−251.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: a variationist study of that. Linguistics, 47, 1−43.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81−105.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61−88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar