Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2017
Native vs. Non-Native Processing of Spanish: The Role of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect Elena Katherine Vogel
Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
NATIVE VS. NON-NATIVE PROCESSING OF SPANISH: THE ROLE OF LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL ASPECT
By ELENA VOGEL
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Modern Languages in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2017
Elena Vogel defended this dissertation on March 27, 2017. The members of the supervisory committee were:
Michael Leeser Professor Directing Dissertation Michael Kaschak University Representative Gretchen Sunderman Committee Member Lara Reglero Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the Ada-Belle-Winthrop King Foundation and the Sigma Delta Pi National Hispanic Honor Society for the research grants which were awarded to fund this dissertation. I am very grateful and appreciative to all of my professors and would like to acknowledge them. In particular, I want to thank my committee chair, Michael Leeser, for his guidance throughout my graduate work. His knowledge and expertise have been invaluable to me. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Gretchen Sunderman, Lara Reglero, and Michael Kaschak for serving on my committee and providing helpful comments and feedback. In addition, I want to thank Dr. Keith Andrews and Dr. Christine Andrews-Larson for putting me in contact with Dr. José Calderón and Cristopher Alberto Perez Soto who helped me recruit participants at the University of San Carlos of Guatemala. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Janet Webster, Dr. Foong Ha Yap, Dr. Patrick Chu, Dr. Carol Madden Lombardi, and Dr. Rolf Zwaan for so generously providing me with their pictures for the second experiment of this research study. Finally, I would like to thank my family for always supporting me throughout my education. I am especially grateful to my mother who instilled in me a desire to learn about other cultures and languages. I also want to thank Cousin Deborah for babysitting while I worked on this dissertation. Last but not least, I dedicate this dissertation to my loving husband who has been a constant source of support and encouragement.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Abstract ............................................................................................................................................x 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................24 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................42 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................62 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................88 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................106 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.
LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPANISH).................................................106 LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONAIRE (ENGLISH) ...................................................108 SELF-PACED READING TASK MATERIALS.................................................................109 SENTENCE-PICTURE MATCHING TASK MATERIALS ..............................................111 FREE RESPONSE QUESTION MATERIALS ...................................................................118 CLOZE TASK MATERIALS ..............................................................................................119 LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS .........................................................................121 INFORMED CONSENT FORM (ENGLISH) .....................................................................122 INFORMED CONSENT FORM (SPANISH) ......................................................................124 DEBRIEFING FORM ...........................................................................................................125 IRB APPROVAL AND RENEWAL LETTERS ..................................................................126
References ....................................................................................................................................129 Biographical Sketch .....................................................................................................................135
v
LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Vendler‟s classification of verbs ................................................................................................4 1.2 Classification of verbs according to lexical aspectual class (Andersen, 1991) ........................4 1.3 Grammatical Aspect as applied to each verb type (Schell, 2000) .............................................5 1.4 Spanish vs. English verbal morphology (Montrul, 2004) ..........................................................7 1.5 Spanish and English feature composition and AspP values (de Miguel, 1992) ......................10 1.6 Andersen‟s 8 developmental stages (Andersen, 1991) ............................................................19 2.1 Distribution of past inflections by verb class (Andersen & Shirai, 1994) ...............................25 2.2 Aspectual classifications as predictors of L2 acquisition of aspect in English (Klein et al., 2004) ..............................................................................................................................................27 3.1 Variables for the Binary Forced Choice Sentence-Picture Matching Task .............................49 3.2 Sentence counterbalancing.......................................................................................................52 3.3 Picture counterbalancing ..........................................................................................................52 3.4 Independent and Dependent Variables for the Self-Paced Reading Task ...............................55 3.5 Counterbalancing of Sentence Conditions ...............................................................................59 4.1 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for the isolated sentence cloze task ...........64 4.2 Comparisons between Groups for the isolated sentence cloze task .........................................65 4.3 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for the story-in-context cloze task .............65 4.4 Comparisons between Groups for the story-in-context cloze task ..........................................66 4.5 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for both cloze tasks ....................................66 4.6 Comparisons between Groups for both cloze tasks .................................................................66 4.7 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for Group, Lexical Aspect, and Grammatical Aspect.......................................................................................................................69 4.8 Summary of main effects for Grammatical Aspect by Group and Lexical Aspect .................70 vi
4.9 Summary of main effects for Group, Grammatical Aspect, and Lexical Aspect ....................71 4.10 Summary of main effects for Group by Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Aspect ...............71 4.11 Means and Standard Deviations of Reaction Times (in milliseconds) for Group, Grammatical Aspect, and Lexical Aspect ......................................................................................72 4.12 Summary of main effects for Group, Lexical Aspect, and Grammatical Aspect ..................73 4.13 Summary of main effects for Lexical Aspect by Grammatical Aspect and Group ...............73 4.14 Summary of main effects for Group by Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Aspect ...............74 4.15 Summary of main effects for Group by Grammatical Aspect ...............................................74 4.16 Mean scores (in percentages) for excluded items ..................................................................76 4.17 Number of items per condition before and after item exclusion ...........................................78 4.18 Overall Mean Scores (in percentages) and Standard Deviations by Group...........................78 4.19 Descriptive Statistics for Group and Sentence Type .............................................................79 4.20 Summary of simple main effects for Group by Sentence Type .............................................79 4.21 Summary of simple main effects for Sentence Type by Group .............................................80 4.22 Descriptive Statistics for Verb Type by Group......................................................................80 4.23 Summary of simple main effects for Verb Type by Group ...................................................81 4.24 Summary of simple main effects for Group by Verb Type ...................................................82 4.25 Mean reading times in milliseconds and standard deviations (in parentheses) by region and sentence type ..................................................................................................................................83 4.26 Summary of the main effects for Group for Region 6 ...........................................................85 4.27 Summary of main effects for Sentence Type and Group for Region 7 .................................85 4.28 Summary of main effects for Group by Sentence Type for Region 7 ...................................86 4.29 Summary of the main effects for Group for Region 7 ...........................................................86 4.30 Summary of main effects for Sentence Type by Group for Region 8 ...................................86
vii
4.31 Summary of main effects for Group by Sentence Type for Region 8 ...................................87
viii
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Tense as a point in time (Comrie, 1985) ....................................................................................2 1.2 A Summary of Linguistic Time (Ayoun & Salaberry, 2008) ....................................................7 1.3 Syntactic tree representing grammatical and lexical aspect (Montrul, 2004) ..........................11 1.4 Syntactic tree representing „John would swim‟ .......................................................................12 1.5 Syntactic tree representing „Juan nadaba‟................................................................................13 1.6 Syntactic tree representing „John swam‟ .................................................................................14 1.7 Syntactic tree representing „Juan nadó‟ ...................................................................................15 1.8 Syntactic tree representing „John was swimming‟...................................................................16 1.9 Syntactic tree representing „Juan estaba nadando‟ ..................................................................17 3.1 Example sentence and picture pair for the activity verb type ..................................................50 3.2 Example sentence and picture pair for the accomplishment verb type ....................................51 3.3 Sentence-picture matching task procedure ..............................................................................54 3.4 Self-paced reading: Non-cumulative linear format with phrase-by-phrase segmentation.......56 4.1 Sentence-Picture Matching Procedure Example ......................................................................68
ix
ABSTRACT The ability to comprehend temporal reference is fundamental to human language and cognition. Thus, skilled language comprehension requires sensitivity to grammatical cues such as verbal aspect (Bybee et al., 1994). For L2 Spanish learners, however, (im)perfective aspect has the reputation of being particularly difficult and late acquired (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002). Although the topic of L2 production of aspect has been heavily researched (Andersen & Shirai, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995), little is known about L2 comprehension of aspect. Consequently, this research study uses psycholinguistic methods to shed light on our understanding of L1 and L2 processing of aspect in Spanish. The present study reports the findings from three language tasks (N= 98; 30 intermediate L2 learners, 33 advanced L2 learners, and 35 native Spanish speakers). First, two offline cloze tasks (a story-in-context cloze task and an isolated sentence cloze task) were utilized to measure the participants‟ knowledge of perfective and imperfective aspect. Second, a forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task considered how aspect restricts the mental representation of the endpoint of a situation. Third, a self-paced reading task examined how native and nonnative speakers detect aspectual mismatches between logical and illogical sentences in real time. By including these three tasks, the overall research design of this study allowed for a comparison between native and non-native comprehension of Spanish aspectual contrasts. As it was expected, all three groups performed best on the highly monitored offline cloze tasks. The results from the sentence-picture matching task suggest that there was a perfective facilitation effect for accomplishment verbs, therefore supporting the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996), which predicts that accomplishments are applied to perfective aspect early in development. The results from the self-paced reading task suggest that the L2 learners demonstrated some shallow processing (Clahsen & Felser, 2006), as they showed difficulties in comprehending morphosyntactic information. The implications of these results for L2 acquisition and L2 instruction are discussed in this dissertation.
x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The ability to refer to time and express oneself using temporal reference is a primary task for human language interaction and human cognition. Given that time is not visible, our representational system is allotted the task of conceptualizing temporal relations and subsequently encoding them into the appropriate language (Binnick, 1991). Needless to say, the nature of this task is quite complex, provided that each language has a different way of conceptualizing and encoding temporal relationships (Bybee et al., 1994; Comrie, 1976; Dahl, 1985). For instance, in order to communicate, humans must think of ways to speak of situations as being in the past, present, or future (i.e., by utilizing tense, or by using temporal expressions from the lexicon such as adverbs). In addition, we can discuss an event that occurred in the past as either ongoing or completed (i.e., by utilizing aspect). Crucially, a language may lack tense, but it will most likely mark for aspect instead. For example, Mandarin Chinese does not utilize tense, but it is strongly marked for aspect to make up for its lack of tense (Li & Bowerman, 1998). Accordingly, it is common for tenseless languages to rely heavily on aspectual cues in order to express temporal relationships. Therefore, two of the most important grammatical systems for expressing temporal concepts in the world‟s languages are tense and aspect (Bybee, 1985). In the case of Spanish and English, both languages mark for tense and aspect. However, aspect is a strong feature in Spanish and a weak feature in English. As a result of this cross-linguistic variation, second language learners are challenged when they encounter the complexity of temporal/aspectual linguistic expressions that differ from their native language in terms of form, function, and usage. As adult and child language learners begin to interpret and express temporal relations, a central task is then to acquire the systems for tense and aspect. Given that aspect is particularly difficult and acquired late for L2 Spanish learners (Andersen & Shirai, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 1995; Montrul & Slabakova, 2002; Prévost & White, 2000), this dissertation is concerned with adult acquisition of aspect in L2 (second language) Spanish who are native speakers of English. Furthermore, this dissertation examines the ability of second language learners to process and comprehend the meanings and uses of aspectual markings in Spanish.
1
Outline of the Chapter The first chapter of this dissertation provides a semantic, syntactic, and theoretical analysis of tense and aspect in Spanish and English. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the significance of this dissertation.
Tense Tense is a linguistic category that is used to locate the time of the event that is being talked about (i.e., event time) with respect to the time at which the speaker produces an utterance (i.e., speech time). Event time can also be specified with reference to a point in time other than speech time, (i.e., reference time). Furthermore, when event time occurs prior to speech time, the past tense is utilized. However, when speech time is prior to event time, the future tense is used (Reichenbach, 1947). When speech time and event time overlap, the present tense is required. For example, the relevant time span for a sentence such as „We were snowed in yesterday‟ is the past time. The reference point is „yesterday‟ and the grammatical past tense marker „were‟ indicates that the event took place in the past. In other words, following this example, reference time and event time took place in the past, therefore corresponding with one another. Comrie (1985) illustrates the concept of time intervals with a straight line, in which an event located to the left of zero represents Past tense and an event to the right of zero represents Future tense. Consequently, an event at zero represents the Present tense. This straight line is exemplified below in Figure 1.1:
0 Past
Present
Future
Figure 1.1 Tense as a point in time (Comrie, 1985)
2
According to Figure 1.1, tense can be described as the grammaticalized expression of a location in time (Comrie, 1985). Put in another way, tense is the way in which some natural languages convey that an event has occurred to the left or to the right of 0 (or exactly at 0, in the case of the present tense).
Aspect In contrast to tense, aspect is a linguistic category that is characterized by how a speaker views the temporal contour of a situation (Comrie, 1976). Whereas tense locates an event at a firm point in time, aspect is concerned with how an event is described with respect to time. For example, different ways of describing a situation include: the beginning, middle, continuation, or completion of an event. (1) a. John walked to the bakery. b. John was walking to the bakery when he bumped into an old friend. In sentence (1a), the simple past (walked) marks a perfective event that is completed, however, sentence (1b) uses the progressive (was walking) to mark an imperfective event that is viewed as on-going or in-progress. Crucially for this dissertation, aspect is the property of the verb that makes it possible for a sentence to specify that an event has been completed or not.
Lexical Aspect One of the most important characteristics of aspect is lexical aspect. Lexical aspect describes the inherent semantic features of a given verb in the infinitive. In other words, lexical aspect refers the semantic characteristics that describe a situation. For example, the verb „to know‟ is inherently stative, showing properties of continuation and homogenization. However, the verb „to jump‟ is inherently punctual, demonstrating a situation that is instantaneous in nature. Vendler (1967) classified verbs into four situation types: states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements. The Vendlerian classification of lexical aspect has been widely used as an analytic framework among researchers of L1 and L2 aspect.
3
Table 1.1 Vendler’s classifaction of verbs STATES: do not show an input of energy ACTIVITIES: have an arbitrary beginning and end point; express a process ACCOMPLISHMENTS: are durative and have an inherent end point ACHIEVEMENTS: have an inherent end point; but no duration (punctual in nature)
More than two decades later, Andersen (1991) contributed several examples of verbs that fall under each lexical aspectual class.
Table 1.2. Classification of verbs according to lexical aspectual class (Andersen, 1991) Dynamic
Telic
Punctual
Example
State
-
-
-
to be, to know
Activity
+
-
-
to run, to write
Accomplishment
+
+
-
to run a mile, to write a letter
Achievement
+
+
+
to arrive, to break
As Table 1.2 demonstrates, verbal aspectual classes can be broken up into three principal categories: (1) punctuality, (2) dynamism, and (3) telicity (Andersen, 1991; Smith, 1997; Vendler, 1967). Punctual verbs are instantaneous and take no more than a moment in time (Engelberg, 2000). Thus, the opposite of a punctual verb is a durative verb. Dynamic verbs are verbs that involve change. Given that states do not involve change, the opposite of a dynamic verb is a stative verb. Verbs that have an inherent endpoint are considered to be telic, while verbs that do not have an inherent endpoint are considered to be atelic. For example, the verbs to know and to eat are defined as atelic. On the other hand, actions such as to run two miles and to notice are categorized as telic. Accordingly, states and activities are atelic, while accomplishments and achievements are telic. Achievement verbs are the most telic and punctual in nature, demonstrating a clear end point.
4
Grammatical Aspect Grammatical aspect, also known as viewpoint aspect (Smith, 1983), refers to aspectual distinctions, which are marked explicitly by linguistic devices. In Spanish, perfective aspect and imperfective aspect are expressed grammatically by means of verbal morphology. Given that English lacks the equivalent morphology, perfective situations are marked using the simple past, and imperfective situations are marked using the progressive aspect (i.e., was doing) and by utilizing modal verbs (i.e. would, used to). In addition, the two languages of interest also differ in their expression of the four lexical classes of verbs. In English, the past progressive cannot be applied to stative verbs (Smith, 1997; Giorgi & Pianesi, 1997). In Spanish, however, both perfective and imperfective aspect can be applied to all four classes of verbs as demonstrated in the table below:
Table 1.3. Grammatical Aspect as applied to each verb type (Schell, 2000) IMPERFECTIVE/ PROGRESSIVE *I was loving you. Te amaba.
PERFECTIVE
ACTIVITY
Mary was swimming. María nadaba.
Mary swam. María nadó.
ACCOMPLISHMENT
John was writing a letter. Juan escribía una carta.
John wrote a letter. Juan escribió una carta.
ACHIEVEMENT
Gloria was turning on the TV. Gloria encendía la tele.
Gloria turned on the TV. Gloria encendió la tele.
STATE
I loved you. Te amé.
Perfective Aspect Perfective aspect combines naturally with achievement verbs, because by definition, perfective aspect presents a situation as a single whole. More specifically, achievement verbs are punctual and they can capture the beginning or end of an action, as in „The race began’ or „The game ended’. Perfective aspect is also compatible with accomplishments, and in this way the completion of the event is expressed as having a clear end point. Examples of accomplishment 5
verbs are: to eat a meal, to draw a circle, and to read a book. Examples of achievement verbs are: to die, to notice, to recognize, to fall asleep, and to break.
Imperfective Aspect Imperfective aspect is broken up into two categories: habitual and continuous. Continuous (in-progress) situations are considered to be background information, which sets up the scene in preparation for the main action (i.e., „I was not at home when our neighbor came by‟). On the other hand, habitual situations describe events that occurred for an extended period of time. For example, „he was dancing‟ (in-progress) and „he used to dance‟ (habitual) or „he would dance‟ (habitual) can all be expressed with the Spanish imperfective aspectual form of „bailaba‟. In general, imperfective aspect is naturally compatible with stative verbs. Given that the imperfective aspect has the [-dynamic] feature, it can easily find duration in a state. As the examples below demonstrate, English often uses the same verb form to express perfective and imperfective aspectual distinctions (as in 2a-b), whereas Spanish uses different verb forms to express perfective-imperfective aspectual contrasts (as in 3a-b). (2) a. The woman walked to the bakery every day. b. The woman walked to the bakery yesterday. (3) a. La mujer caminaba a la panadería cada día. b. La mujer caminó a la panadería ayer.
Spanish and English Aspectual Systems To review, as it was previously mentioned, both tense and aspect are responsible for describing the temporal characteristics of an event or situation. Tense locates an event in relation to a point in time. Aspect refers to the continuation or completion of an event. In terms of grammatical aspect, Spanish primarily encodes aspect by means of aspectual morphology on the verb. In contrast, English encodes past time with temporal adverbs (i.e., yesterday), and modal verbs (i.e., „used to‟ or „would‟), in addition to inflectional morphology (i.e., -ed). As opposed to grammatical aspect, lexical aspect describes the intrinsic temporal features of the semantics of the verb, which can be classified into the following verb types: states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements. States and activities are considered to be atelic (without an
6
inherent endpoint), while accomplishments and achievements are telic (with an inherent endpoint). A review of some of the basic terms from this section is summarized in the figure below:
Linguistic Time
Tense Present Past Future
Aspect
Grammatical Perfective Imperfective
Lexical
Atelic States Activities
Telic Accomplishments Achievements
Figure 1.2. A Summary of Linguistic Time (Ayoun & Salaberry, 2008)
Overall, Spanish perfective/imperfective contrasts are notoriously difficult for L2 learners to acquire. The development of verbal morphology in L2 Spanish among L1 English speakers is especially problematic due to the different ways in which tense and aspect are represented across these two languages as shown in Table 1.4 below.
Table 1.4. Spanish vs. English verbal morphology (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002, p. 124) [root + thematic vowel] stem + suffix 1 (tense/aspect/mood) + suffix 2 (person/number) Spanish: [cant + a] stem
+ ba suffix1 (past imperfective indicative) + n suffix2 (third person plural)
English: [sang]
+Ø
+Ø
7
Spanish verbs are inflected for person, number, tense, aspect, and mood. All of this grammatical information is typically condensed into two suffixes. Table 1.4 demonstrates the breakdown of the (a) first suffix, which represents tense, aspect, and mood, and (b) the second suffix, which represents person and number. Whereas Spanish demonstrates a rich and complex morphological system, English has a weak morphological system. In Spanish, habituality is demonsrated by the use of imperfective morphological inflections, whereas in English habituality is expressed by: (a) the simple past tense (as in sentence 4d), or (b) auxiliary verbs (as in sentences 4b-c). (4) a. Juan jugaba al tenís (cada día cuando era ñino). b. „John would play tennis (every day when he was young)‟. c. „John used to play tennis (every day when he was young)‟. d. „John played tennis (every day when he was young)‟. The L2 learner of Spanish (with an L1 of English) must be aware of the ambigous interpretation that is derived from the imperfective inflectional morphology on the verb, which includes two possible readings; habitual and ongoing. Moreover, English lacks a temporal contrast that is equivalent to the imperfective aspect in Spanish. In English, the Simple Past and the Past Progressive can sometimes convey the meanings of habituality and continuity that the imperfective aspect communicates in Spanish. But that is most certainly not always the case, as it can be seen in the examples below (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002, p. 120-121). (5) a. Mary was sick and she is still sick.
STATE
b. #Mary ran in the park and is still running.
ACTIVITY
c. #Mary ran 5 miles and is still running.
ACCOMPLISHMENT
d. #The ice melted and is still melting.
ACHIEVEMENT
As seen in (5a), stative verbs act differently than other verb types in several ways. First, with statives, the Simple Past is neutral to the perfective/imperfective distinction. For instance, (5a) takes two possible meanings, one in which „Mary is no longer sick‟ (perfective reading), and one in which „Mary is still sick‟ (imperfective interpretation). In contrast, sentences (5b-d) are
8
not compatible with the imperfective aspect. Statives are also unique due to their incompatibility with the Past Progressive in English and Spanish (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002, p. 121)1: (6) a. *El auto estaba costando $20.000. b. „*The car was costing $20.000‟. However, as in examples (7a and 8a), it is grammatical and appropriate to utilize imperfective aspect with statives in Spanish (Montrul & Slabakova, 2002, p. 121): (7) a. El auto costaba (IMP) $20.000. b. „The car was for sale at $20.000.‟ c. *The car was costing (IMP) $20.000. d. The car cost (PERF) $20.000. (8) a. Lo veía (IMP) caminando. b. *I was seeing (IMP) him walking. c. I saw (PERF) him walking. Given these examples, it is clear that Spanish and English greatly differ in how they represent lexical and grammatical aspect. In addition, classification of lexical aspect has been an integral factor in determining the distinctions between the imperfective and perfective aspect in Spanish and English (Liskin-Gasparro, 2000; Montrul & Slabakova, 2003; Salaberry, 1999).
Theoretical Perspectives on Acquisition of Aspect Two theoretical frameworks that can explain the difficulties that L2 learners encounter as they acquire L2 aspect are: (a) Generative Grammar and (b) Lexical Semantics. The following sections provide an overview of the theoretical proposals and hypotheses that they have generated for L2 acquisition of aspect. Even though (7c) and (8b) are ungrammatical, L1 English speakers do mark the stative verb „to be‟ with the progressive marker „-ing‟, as in „John was being silly‟, which denotes John‟s behavior at a particular point in time. In contrast, the sentence: „John was silly‟ refers to John‟s foolishness as a more permanent characteristic of his personality.
1
9
Generative Grammar and Universal Grammar An assumption of UG (Universal Grammar) is that of Universal principles, which are common to all languages and parameters, which account for language specific rules. Thus, linguistic diversity is characterized in terms of the values of parameters (Chomsky, 1995). Moreover, from a UG perspective, language acquisition is a process of parameter setting. One such parameter is the Verb Raising Parameter, which was proposed by Suñer (1994) and Torrego (1984) for Spanish. This parameter maintains that Spanish displays [+strong] agreement features that triggers overt verb movement. By contrast, English demonstrates [-strong] agreement features, which prevent verbs from moving up in the overt syntax. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) were among the earliest of studies to provide a semantic and syntactic analysis of tense and aspect by using Minimalism (Chomsky, 1995) as their theoretical framework. According to Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), aspect heads a functional projection AspP, where the features [+/- perfective] are checked, depending on the language. Thus, crosslinguistic variation is exhibited by a difference in behaviors between [+/- perfective] features. For instance, in Spanish, [+/- perfective] features are checked overtly through inflectional morphology, and in English only the [+ perfective] feature is available. These differences can be seen in Table 1.5 below.
Table 1.5. Spanish and English feature composition and AspP values (de Miguel, 1992) F-features
M-paradigm
English
+ perfective
Simple Past
Spanish
+ perfective
Perfective
F-features
M- paradigm
-perfective
Imperfective
In Table 1.5, F-features refer to the formal features, and M-paradigm refers to the morphological paradigm. As the table demonstrates, English associates with the feature value [+perfective], which encodes boundedness with all eventive predicates (i.e. activities, accomplishments, and achievements). In Spanish, however, both [+perfective] and [-perfective] features are relevant and strong. Therefore, the perfective and imperfective aspectual distinction is realized by a rich morphological system in Spanish. Accordingly, Spanish gains its aspectual
10
properties by checking the [+/- perfective] features through overt perfective and imperfective inflectional morphology.
AgrP [+/- agreement] Agr
TP [+/- tense] T
AspP [+/- perfective] grammatical aspect Asp
ProgP [+/- prog] VP
Prog V
AspP [+/- telic] lexical aspect Asp
VP V
Figure 1.3. Syntactic tree representing grammatical and lexical aspect (Montrul, 2004)
Within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995), aspect constitutes a separate functional category. Furthermore, aspect is exemplified as a functional head, which projects an Aspect Phrase (Giorgi & Pianesi, 1997). Moreover, according to Montrul (2004), Travis (2000), and Zagona (1988), lexical aspect and grammatical aspect are located in different positions of the syntactic structure. Following their analyses, grammatical aspect is located above the highest verbal projection and below TP (Tense Phrase), where overt aspectual morphology checks the feature values [+/- perfective]. Likewise, the head of lexical aspect is located between the two verb phrases and checks the feature values [+/- telic]. This makes sense given that lexical aspect is more closely related to the VP, providing the lexical characteristics of the verb (Montrul, 2004). 11
Taking into account this structure, knowledge of the perfective/imperfective aspectual distinction in Spanish comprises knowledge of the morpho-syntax (the perfective/imperfective morphological paradigms) and its associated semantic interpretation (bounded vs. unbounded situation). More specifically, in Spanish, overt verb movement to the functional category AspP is necessary in order to check [+/- perfective] features. In English, verbs move covertly to AspP but they are already lexically specified as [+ perfective]. Furthermore, English does not instantiate the feature [- perfective] (Montrul and Slabakova, 2002, 2003). Therefore, L2 learners of Spanish who are L1 English speakers must acquire that AspP encodes both [+/- perfective] features even though [- perfective] is not available in English.
TP NP Joh
s
I T [+ past] 0 VP T ould I NP V ts V
s i Figure 1.4. Syntactic tree representing „John would swim‟
As Figure 1.4 demonstrates, agreement features trigger movement of the Subject to the Specifier of the Tense Phrase. However, the main verb „swim‟ remains base generated at the bottom of the syntactic structure, while the auxiliary verb „would‟ is projected higher in the structure at the head of Tense Phrase. It is important to note that the [-perfective] feature is nonexistent in English; therefore it is not represented in the syntactic tree above.
12
TP NP Jua
s
I T [+ past]
ada a AspP Asp Asp
0
I
[- perfe ti e] VP I
V 0
V
AspP I Asp [- teli ]
Asp
0
VP
NP ts
I
V V t
Figure 1.5. Syntactic tree representing „Juan nadaba‟
Given that the [-perfective] feature is relevant and strong in Spanish, the verb „nadar‟ must check for [-perfective]. The [-perfective] feature is the main difference between Spanish and English because both languages check for [+/- telic] and [+/- past].
13
TP NP Joh
s
I T [+ past]
s a
AspP Asp Asp
0
I
[+ perfe ti e] VP I
V 0
V
AspP [- teli ] Asp Asp
0
I
VP NP ts
I
V V t
Figure 1.6. Syntactic tree representing „John swam’
In English, the simple past tense requires the verb to move covertly to check for [+perfective] and [+past]. For each of the example structures above and below (Figures 1.4-1.9), the verb „swim‟ is atelic (i.e., unbounded), demonstrating an inherent semantic feature of [-telic].
14
TP NP Jua
s
I T [+ past]
adó
AspP Asp Asp
0
I
[+ perfe ti e]
VP I
V V
0
AspP [- teli ] Asp Asp
0
I
VP NP ts
I
V V t
Figure 1.7. Syntactic tree representing „Juan nadó‟
In Spanish, perfective aspect requires the verb to move overtly to check for [+perfective] and [+past].
15
TP NP Joh
s
I T [+ past] 0
T as aux
ProgP I Prog [+ prog]
Prog
0
VP NP ts
I
V
taux VP I
V s i
i g VP I
V V t
Figure 1.8. Syntactic tree representing „John was swimming’ In both English and Spanish, the past progressive requires checking of [+past] and [+progressive] features. Both Spanish and English represent the past progressive with an auxiliary verb in addition to the main verb. Although Spanish auxiliaries can take the form of the perfective or imperfective aspect, English only has one possible auxiliary form for the past progressive. This distinction is illustrated by Figures 1.8 and 1.9.
16
TP NP Jua
I
T [+ past]
0 AspP T esta aaux I Asp s
Asp
0
[- perfe ti e] ProgP I
Prog [+ prog] Prog
0
VP
NP ts
I
V taux
VP I
V
ada do VP I
V
V t
Figure 1.9. Syntactic tree representing „Juan estaba nadando‟ The purpose of this section has been to provide a syntactic analysis of aspect as a functional category, using the theoretical framework of the Minimalist Program. This section
17
summarized the role of functional categories in motivating syntactic movement in Spanish and English. The next section discusses (a) three hypotheses that are concerned with how the L1 and UG constrain second language development in terms of the acquisition of features and feature values and (b) one hypothesis that is concerned with the role of lexical semantics and the acquisition of aspect.
Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis The Full Transfer-Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994, 1996) claims that L2 learners are able to acquire features in a second language even when those features carry a different feature value than their native language. The Full Transfer-Full Access Hypothesis also states that the L1 grammar and L1 parameter settings determine the initial state of L2 acquisition (full transfer), and that L2 learners have full access to UG at all times during the acquisition process.
Failed Functional Features Hypothesis In contrast to the Full Transfer-Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996), the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997) predicts that L2 learners will not be able to reset language parameters that are not instantiated in the L1. According to Hawkins & Chan (1997), a subset of uninterpretable features will “fail” and prevent L2 acquisition of those features.
Shallow Structures Hypothesis Both the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997) and the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006) agree that L2 learners have a deficit at the level of syntax. In a series of experiments carried out by Clahsen and Felser (2006) and Marinis, Roberts, Felser, and Clahsen (2005), it was concluded that L2 learners rely heavily on lexical-semantic information rather than on the syntactic/structure-based parsing strategies that native speakers use. Even though the experimental task of their studies was to resolve various syntactic ambiguities, the L2 learners still clung on to their surface level processing techniques, therefore demonstrating a lack of deep grammatical knowledge. As a result of these discrepancies between native and non-native processing, Clahsen and Felser (2006) proposed the
18
Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH), which claims that adult L2 learners compute shallower and less detailed syntactic representations than L1 speakers during sentence comprehension. Overall, the SSH suggests that language learners process linguistic input in a fundamentally different way than native speakers.
Lexical Semantics and the Aspect Hypothesis Generative second language acquisition has focused primarily on issues of syntactic representation, investigating to what extent the principles and parameters of Universal Grammar constrain L2 acquisition. Unlike the Generative approaches to second language acquisition that are presented in the sections above, the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1994) claims that language learners are influenced by the lexical semantics of the verb when they use tense-aspect markings in the target language. Andersen (1986) was the first to study the acquisition of Spanish aspect in Puerto Rico by Anthony, a twelve-year-old native speaker of English. Andersen‟s analysis of Anthony‟s interlanguage showed that he used perfective morphology (in obligatory contexts for the perfective or imperfective) only with verbs that were punctual, and used imperfective morphology for stative or durative situations. As a result of this study, Andersen (1991) put forward eight stages of development for the emergence of aspect in Spanish. A summary of his eight developmental sequences can be seen in Table 1.6 below. Table 1.6. Andersen’s 8 developmental stages (Andersen, 1991) Stages
States
Activities
Accomplishments Achievements
1
Present
Present
Present
Present
2
Present
Present
Present
Perfective
3
Imperfective
Present
Present
Perfective
4
Imperfective
Imperfective
Perfective
Perfective
5
Imperfective
Imperfective
Perf/Imp
Perfective
6
Imperfective
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
Perfective
7
Imperfective
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
8
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
Perf/Imp
19
As it has been demonstrated in Table 1.6, the Aspect Hypothesis predicts the route of acquisition of perfective and imperfective morphology according to lexical semantic characteristics. Furthermore, the Aspect Hypothesis follows four major steps of emergence (Andersen & Shirai, 1996, p. 559; Bardovi-Harlig, 2000) that are presented below: (a) Learners will initially restrict past or perfective marking to achievement and accomplishment verbs (those with an inherent end point) and later gradually extend the marking to activities and then states, with states being the last category to be marked consistently. (b) In languages with an imperfective marker, imperfective past appears much later than perfective past and then is initially restricted to states and activity predicates, then extended to accomplishments, and finally to achievements. (c) Progressive marking is initially restricted to activity predicates, and then extended to accomplishments and achievements. (d) Progressive marking is not incorrectly overextended to states. According to Andersen & Shirai (1994), the Aspect Hypothesis states that first and second language learners will initially be influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs when acquiring aspect. Furthermore, acquisition and emergence of perfective and imperfective morphology follows a semantic and universal pattern. In other words, the Aspect Hypothesis claims that the inherent temporal meaning of lexical aspect is related to the distribution of tenseaspect morphology. Overall, the Aspect Hypothesis has been an important and influential proposal for our understanding of first and second language acquisition of tense and aspect. In particular, the results from Andersen and Shirai (1994) indicate that lexical aspect influences the use and the emergence of grammatical aspect. Therefore, the link that is drawn between lexical and grammatical aspect is a critical factor for all research involving acquisition of aspect.
Overview of the Theoretical Frameworks To summarize, theories of Generative Grammar and Lexical Semantics agree that L2 aspect is late acquired, and that tense/aspect morphology is acquired before its corresponding semantic interpretations. In addition, both theories support the claim that the perfective emerges first in the acquisition process and that the perfective aspect acts as the default (i.e., Montrul & Slabakova, 2003; Salaberry, 2003; Slavakova, 2001). Overall, both theoretical frameworks are important perspectives to keep in mind for a full understanding of the acquisition of L2 aspect
20
from a comprehension perspective. On one hand, Universal Grammar provides an explanation for how the L1 and UG constrain L2 acquisition. On the other hand, Lexical Semantics accounts for the emergence of aspect (i.e., the developmental stages of L2 aspect), therefore providing insight into the order of acquisition and how L2 learners‟ interlanguage systems progress over time.
Significance of the Dissertation The use of verbal aspect in real-time discourse provides comprehenders with a good deal of temporal information about described situations. Moreover, temporal expressions are fundamental to communication. At the same time though, the formal and functional marking of time can vary dramatically from one language to the next. Therefore, for linguists, second language acquisition specialists, cognitive psychologists, and foreign language instructors it is imperative to better understand the mental processes that are involved during comprehension of verbal aspect. Moreover, given that Spanish (im)perfective aspect has the reputation of being particularly difficult and late acquired for L1 English speakers, the current study is of particular interest for language instructors who teach Spanish to native English speakers. Based on previous research, linguists have gathered information regarding learners‟ production, development, and emergence of tense/aspect distinctions and tense/aspect morphology (Andersen, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000; Comajoan, 2001; Liskin-Gasparro, 1996; Salaberry, 2000, 2008, 2011). However, few empirical studies have investigated how such production skills can be compared to real-time comprehension. Therefore, this dissertation captures more implicit processes that are associated with real-time processing of tense and aspect in Spanish. This dissertation distinguishes itself from previous studies in terms of the on-line methodology being utilized, which include a self-paced reading task and a forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task, which tap into L2 learners‟ on-line processing mechanisms of tense-aspect distinctions. In this way, the current study supplements the on-line data from Roberts and Liszka (2013), Madden and Zwaan (2003), and Yap et al. (2009), who investigated L1 and L2 processing of tense and aspect in English and Cantonese. These studies will be reviewed in chapter 2.
21
Organization of the Dissertation The first chapter of the dissertation provides a semantic, syntactic, and theoretical analysis of tense and aspect. Chapter two presents a review of the literature on L1 and L2 production and comprehension of aspect. The second chapter concludes with the research questions and hypotheses that guide the investigation. The third chapter outlines the research methodology, including information about the participants, materials, and procedure. Chapter four presents the results from all of the language tasks. Finally, chapter five provides a discussion of the findings, the implications and limitations of the study, and offers suggestions for future research.
List of Terms Tense: Expresses time relative to the moment of speech. Present Tense: The situation occurs during the speech event. Past Tense: The situation occurred before the speech event. Future Tense: The situation will occur after the speech event. Aspect: The way events relate to time. Lexical aspect (also called Aktionsart, situation aspect, inner aspect): The temporal constituency of events, and the inherent properties of events. Grammatical aspect (also called viewpoint aspect, outer aspect): Locates events in time. Grammatical aspect is the linguistic representation of events. Perfective Aspect: A situation that is viewed as bounded. Imperfective Aspect: A situation that is viewed as not bounded. Progressive Aspect: A situation that is in-progress at reference time. Non-Progressive Aspect: A situation that is not in progress at reference time. Habitual Aspect: Specifies an event as occurring habitually or customarily. Continuous Aspect: Denotes a current state (i.e., „He is wearing summer clothes‟). Dynamicity: Situations that continue and do not change much over time are considered to be stative. Situations that involve change are considered to be dynamic. Telicity: Situations that have an inherent endpoint are telic. Situations that do not have an inherent endpoint are atelic.
22
Punctuality: Situations are either punctual (they are short in duration), or durative (they are long in duration). States: Do not show an input of energy. Activities: Express a process. Accomplishments: Are durative and have an inherent end point. Achievements: Have an inherent endpoint, but no duration (punctual in nature). Inflectional Morphology: Distinguishes different inflections of the same lexeme. Universal Grammar: An innate grammar that attempts to establish the properties and constraints which are common to all human languages. Covert movement: Does not actually involve movement. Instead, features are allowed to be checked over long distances. Covert movement occurs post-Spell Out. Overt movement: Characterized as movement before Spell Out. Overt movement is triggered by an EPP feature. Strong features: Associated with overt movement. Strong features must be checked off before Spell Out (before PF). Weak features: Associated with covert movement. Weak features can be checked after Spell Out (and they can survive at PF). Checking takes place when there is a relevant structural relationship between two elements. Phrases check their features in the specifier of the relevant head, while heads check their feature by adjunction to the relevant head. Phrase is the maximal projection from a lexical head. Specifier consists of various elements including determiners, not selected by the head. Head is a lexical category (i.e., N, V, Det). Projection is when the lexical head projects its properties onto other elements in the phrase. Complement is a phrase (i.e., NP) that is selected by the head
23
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND
Outline of the Chapter This chapter discusses the relevant research for the acquisition of aspect among native speakers and second language learners. First, the chapter provides an overview of L2 production studies of aspect. Second, the chapter examines seminal studies in L1 and L2 comprehension of aspect. Third, this chapter discusses how the current study addresses some of the limitations of previous research on the acquisition of aspect. Chapter two concludes with the research questions that guided the experiments of the present study.
L2 Production Studies There are numerous studies that have analyzed language production and emergence of the Spanish perfective and imperfective aspectual contrasts (Andersen, 1986; Andersen & Shirai, 1994; Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995; Camps, 2000; Collins, 2002; Comajoan, 2005; Comrie, 1976, 1985; Liskin-Gasparro, 2000; Salaberry, 1999, 2003). These production studies have been the predominant method for investigating acquisition of aspect to date. To begin, Andersen (1986) was the first to study the emergence of L2 Spanish aspect. According to Andersen & Shirai (1994), the Aspect Hypothesis states that learners will initially be influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs when acquiring tense-aspect markings. The researchers‟ account focuses on adults and their adherence to the primacy of inherent semantic aspect in the relative quantitative distribution of tense-aspect markers in their production. The Aspect Hypothesis accounts for how learners organize information and then convey that information in their production. Andersen (1991) suggested that L2 learners follow a particular sequence in the development of aspectual markers: the use of perfective aspect spreads from punctual verbs to non-punctual verbs, and then the use of the imperfective aspect spreads from stative verbs to non-stative verbs. According to Andersen and Shirai (1994), the first stage of development is the restriction of the use of the verbal morphology. Learners base their restriction on the distinction between each semantic class of verbs. For example, perfective inflections are restricted primarily to
24
accomplishment and achievement verbs. In contrast, progressive inflections are restricted primarily to activities and are rarely overextended to stative verbs. Imperfective inflections are restricted primarily to states and activities. The table below summarizes the distribution of past inflections by verb class for L2 learners (Andersen & Shirai, 1994).
Table 2.1. Distribution of past inflections by verb class (Andersen & Shirai, 1994) Verb class
Early
Late
Native adult use
State
Uninflected
Imperfective
Imperfective Perfective
Activity
Progressive
Progressive Imperfective
Progressive Imperfective
Accomplishment/ Achievement
Perfective
Perfective
Perfective Imperfective Progressive
From Table 2.1 it is apparent that within the early stages of development, activities are marked with progressive aspect. Later on, the imperfective is marked with activities. For stative verbs, in the early stages there is no inflection or marking, and in the later stage the imperfective is inflected. For accomplishments and achievements, the perfective is inflected in the early and late stages. Overall, Andersen‟s (1986, 1991, and 1992) quasi-longitudinal study showed that the perfective aspect appeared first, and the order of emergence was: achievement, accomplishment, activity, and state. Second, the imperfective was acquired later and followed the sequence of: state, activity, accomplishment, and achievement. Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds (1995) further investigated the acquisition of tense and aspect among adults. Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds (1995) examined the development of the tense and aspect by identifying areas of difficulty for English language learners. The study investigated 182 adult learners of English as a second language at six levels of proficiency. The study further supported the Aspect Hypothesis and demonstrated that the acquisition of the past tense in English follows certain stages based on lexical aspect. Similar to Andersen & Shirai (1994), the
25
overall findings show that the acquisition of tense and aspect by classroom language learners of ESL with instruction follows the sequences of development that have been observed in the acquisition of adult learners without instruction who were learning Spanish. In the early stages, learners often do not use the past tense where native speakers prefer it. This misuse of the past tense indicates an undergeneralization of the meaning of the past tense in the learner grammar. In order to examine the role of the meaning of the past tense, BardoviHarlig & Reynolds present a cross-sectional study confirming that lexical aspect influences acquisition even in classroom language learners. For this study, they were interested in the acquisition of tense and aspect by instructed learners within the framework of lexical aspect. The goal of their study was to determine whether adult classroom language learners demonstrate the influence of lexical aspect in their acquisition of tense and grammatical aspect. The learners were given 32 short cloze passages, which contained 62 test items. The 62 test items testing the use of the simple past tense included 14 achievements, 11 accomplishments, 12 activities, and 10 states. In order to analyze the responses for each of the items and for each lexical aspectual class, a distributional analysis classified all the verb forms that the learners supplied for each context. The distributional analysis then gave a percentage of the responses for each form. The results demonstrated that event verbs (achievement and accomplishment verbs) exhibited a high level of appropriate use at the lower levels. At Level 2, the event verbs show 80% appropriate use, while activity verbs show 65.1% appropriate use. The uses of the activity verbs remain inappropriate until the advanced Level 6 with 82% appropriate use. Overall, three stages were observed in the acquisition of the simple past tense (i.e., perfective aspect). The first stage exhibited greater use of the simple past tense with event verbs. In the second stage (at about Level 4), stative verbs begin to show greater use of the perfective than activity-type verbs. In contrast, the third stage shows that activity verbs and stative verbs are used the same amount. These results confirm that lexical aspectual class influences the use of simple past tense on this task. In addition, the study indicates that lexical-aspectual development correlates with L2 proficiency. The table below displays the various aspectual classifications as predictors of development of L2 English morphology.
26
Table 2.2. Aspectual classifications as predictors of L2 acquisition of aspect in English (Klein et al., 2004) Telicity
Verb Type
Example
Prediction
Telic
Accomplishment
She is closing a window. She closed a window.
Late Early
Atelic
Activity
She is waiting at the station. She waited at the station.
Early Late
Stative
She is loving it. She loved it.
Not predicted Late
The table above predicts early L2 development of grammatical morphemes. For example the –ing ending in English should initially appear on activities (i.e., to wait), but should not be overused with stative verbs (i.e., to love). In addition, the progressive –ing morpheme should appear on accomplishments (i.e., to close) rather late in development. Furthermore, the past tense –ed ending should be applied to telics before atelics. In accordance with the Aspect Hypothesis, these predictions have been supported by Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds (1995), Bardovi-Harlig & Bergström (1996), and Bardovi-Harlig (1992, 1998). In general, the Aspect Hypothesis (AH) is considered to be a cognitive-based prototype account (Shirai & Andersen, 1995). The Aspect Hypothesis has gained a lot of support from offline data, in particular with L2 production data such as elicitation tasks. According to the Aspect Hypothesis, acquisition and emergence of perfective and imperfective morphology follow a semantic and universal pattern. Furthermore, the Aspect Hypothesis claims that the inherent temporal meaning of lexical aspect is related to the distribution of tense-aspect morphology. Overall, the Aspect Hypothesis has been an important and influential proposal for our understanding of second language acquisition of tense and aspect. In particular, the link that is drawn between lexical and grammatical aspect is undeniable, therefore making it a critical factor as we move forward. Nevertheless, these L2 productions studies are not without some limitations. Therefore, the next section of the dissertation discusses the drawbacks of some of these L2 production studies.
27
Limitations of L2 Production Studies In Andersen‟s study (1986), adolescent L1 English speakers learning Spanish in Puerto Rico followed a distinct developmental sequence in their production of aspectual markers. Thus, Andersen (1986, 1991) used Vendler‟s (1967) aspectual distinctions in order to demonstrate his proposal that aspectual morphology emerges in corresponding distribution with lexical aspect. More specifically, Andersen suggested that L2 learners follow eight stages of development (as shown by Table 1.6 in chapter 1). Nevertheless, the data from his study are difficult to generalize given that only two participants were involved in his study. As a result of Andersen‟s (1986, 1991) small sample size, later studies have included larger sample sizes of instructed foreign language learners (Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds, 1995). The Aspect Hypothesis is a data-driven observation of L2 development that is based on observed patterns of language use. According to the Aspect Hypothesis, L2 development is characterized by increased use of non-prototypical pairings (i.e., telic verbs with imperfective aspect and atelic verbs with perfective aspect). For instance, the results from Bardovi-Harlig and Bergström (1996) suggest that learners are more influenced by prototypes at the earlier stages of acquisition, and as proficiency increases, prototypes in production decreases. Although these L2 production studies provide support for the Aspect Hypothesis (i.e., Andersen & Shirai, 1996; BardoviHarlig, 2000; Robinson, 1995; and Shirai, 1999), it is still uncertain whether similar findings can be demonstrated when investigating L2 comprehension. Furthermore, examining L2 morphological use exclusively (as is the case with these L2 production studies) cannot completely account for the underlying competence of L2 aspect. In order to fill this gap in research, a few studies in L2 comprehension have sought to determine the morphosyntactic competence of L2 learners in the area of tense and aspect (i.e., Montrul & Slabakova, 2003; Roberts & Liszka, 2013; Slabakova & Montrul, 2003).
L2 Comprehension Studies A well-known exemplar study by Montrul and Slabakova (2003), utilized two comprehension measures in order to investigate L2 comprehension of aspect. The first task (the sentence-conjunction judgment task) required the participants to read and then determine whether certain sentences were logical or illogical. The second task (the truth-value judgment
28
task) asked the participants to read short paragraphs which told a story and determine whether the sentence following each story was true or false. For Montrul and Slabakova (2003), their research questions were twofold: (1) whether the L2 acquisition of features that are not instantiated in the L1 is subject to a critical period, and (2) whether native-like comprehension and interpretation of the perfective/imperfective contrast in Spanish is attainable, particularly among non-native speakers that are thought to have reached the end-state in performance (i.e., in their end-state grammars). Here, Montrul and Slabakova predicted that aspect is encoded in a functional category (AspP) where the features [+/perfective] are checked, depending on the language in question (Giorgi & Pianesi, 1997). Their research questions tested Hawkins and Chan‟s (1997) Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (FFFH), which claims that L2 learners cannot acquire a functional feature in the L2 if that feature has not yet been instantiated in their L1. Montrul and Slabakova‟s (2003) main experiment was a sentence-conjunction judgment task. This task tested for knowledge of bounded-unbounded interpretations of perfective and imperfective morphology with accomplishment, achievement, and stative verbs. For this task, some of the experimental sentences were logical and others were illogical. The two main clauses of each experimental sentence were joined by the conjunctions: „y‟ (and) or „pero‟ (but). Some of the combinations (between the two clauses) made sense, and other combinations did not make any logical sense. Thus, the participants were asked to read the sentences and determine whether or not the sentence made logical sense. More specifically, the participants were instructed to rate the logicalness of each sentence on a scale from -2 (illogical) to +2 (logical). In addition, the participants were supposed to answer with a 0 if they had no intuition about the logicalness of the sentence. Among the illogical sentences, the researchers created sentences in which the first clause did not match with the second clause. Among the illogical items, both verb phrases contradicted each other and both verbs were inflected for perfective aspect (i.e., a completed event). An example pair of sentences can be seen below. Example (9) is interpreted as logical, whereas example (10) is illogical: (9)
Logical sentence: La clase era a las 10 pero empezó a las 10:30. „The class was-IMP at 10 but it started at 10:30.‟
29
(10)
Illogical sentence: *La clase fue a las 10 pero empezó a las 10:30. *„The class was-PERF at 10 but it started at 10:30.‟ Montrul and Slabakova (2003) proposed that if intermediate learners are still highly
constrained by their L1, then they will not have acquired all the formal features of Spanish AspP and will not differentiate semantically between the perfective and imperfective aspect. On the one hand, they predicted that the advanced learners from their study would acquire the perfective/imperfective semantic contrast. On the other hand, they predicted a failure to acquire the feature value [-perfective], which is not available in English. Furthermore, the researchers predicted that the English intermediate learners, who are more constrained by their L1 than advanced learners may use the feature [-progressive] of the functional category ProgP rather than the [-perfective]. The findings from Montrul and Slabakova (2003) demonstrated that (a) English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish can successfully acquire the morpho-syntactic and interpretive properties of perfective and imperfective aspect in Spanish, and (b) there is a strong connection between the acquisition of the inflectional morphology and the semantic interpretation of these aspectual distinctions. Furthermore, 70.5% of the near-native speakers performed like native speakers. And at least 26.1% of the superior group of learners acquired the perfective and imperfective morphology and showed signs that the semantic contrast between the perfective-imperfective was emerging. The most variation between the superior group and the native speakers was detected with stative verbs and the imperfective aspect. Taken as a whole, none of the predictions based on the FFFH were confirmed for the majority of the subjects in the near-native group. Moreover, the developmental trend that is noted from this study supports the position of the Full Transfer/Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994, 1996; White, 1985). Montrul and Slabakova (2003) concluded that it is possible to set new parametric values through the acquisition of formal features (e.g., [-perfective] and [+perfective]) in interlanguage grammars. Overall, Montrul and Slabakova (2003) found that native English speakers are able to overcome the parametric options of their native language while comprehending aspect in their second language (Spanish). Even still, the researchers maintain that full acquisition of the
30
perfective-imperfective opposition in Romance languages is difficult and takes some time. Montrul and Slabakova (2003) also acknowledge that their near-native speaker group consisted of language teachers and advanced students of Spanish. Therefore, Montrul and Slabakova (2003) do not pretend to generalize their results beyond the sample of speakers that were tested in their experiment. Furthermore, they suggest that the near-native speaker group of their study may perform differently from a group of L2 learners who have been exposed to Spanish in a more naturalistic environment. Overall, their findings support the hypothesis that native English speakers are capable of acquiring features of functional categories that are not instantiated in the native language. Another seminal study in L2 comprehension of aspect is that of Roberts and Liszka (2013). With the exception of Roberts & Liszka (2013), second language processing research has not yet examined L2 acquisition of tense and aspect. By implementing a self-paced reading task, Roberts and Liszka (2013) observed how French and German learners of L2 English processed simple past and present perfect sentences containing temporal-aspectual mismatches in real time. As shown in examples (11) and (12), mismatches were generated by the temporal adverbial that did not fit with the inflected verbs of the simple past and present perfect (Roberts, 2013, p. 419). (11)
(12)
Simple past: a. Last week, James went swimming every day.
Match
b. # Since the summer, James went swimming every day.
Mismatch
Present perfect: a. Last week, James has gone swimming every day.
Match
b. # Since the summer, James has gone swimming every day.
Mismatch
Roberts and Liszka (2013) predicted that; if learners have fully acquired the semantics underlying the morphological marking of tense and aspect, then they should be sensitive to the mismatch between a fronted temporal adverbial and the tensed clause that follows during both offline and on-line comprehension. Overall then, both the offline acceptability judgment task and the on-line self-paced reading task were designed to investigate the explicit and implicit knowledge of English tense/aspect violations of L1 speakers of German and French.
31
First, Roberts and Liszka found that L2 learners demonstrated explicit knowledge of the English past simple and present perfect on an off-line measure. In addition, the two learner groups patterned differently from each other in their on-line processing of the experimental sentences. The L1 French group was sensitive to the mismatched conditions that were ungrammatical. On the other hand, the L1 German group was not sensitive to the past simple and present perfect mismatch items. Finally, the native speakers had a greater processing cost for the mismatched conditions that contained the present perfect. Interestingly though, the native speaker group did not elicit slower reading times for the mismatch condition that contained the simple past. This last result is uncharacteristic of a native speaker group to say the least. In other words, it was expected that the native speakers would show some kind of sensitivity to the ungrammatical sentences, unless of course the native speakers did not consider them ungrammatical. The researchers note that some of the experimental sentences may have been semantically „odd‟, and that others of their sentences may not have been fully ungrammatical for native speakers. Based on the results of the Roberts and Liszka (2013) study, the first language had an influence on the participants‟ processing of tense/aspect violations of English (the L2). Given that French demonstrates rich aspectual verbal morphology, whereas German does not, it came as no surprise that the L1 French group was better able to detect aspectual agreement violations than the L1 German group. However, simply implementing an offline task would not have revealed this result. The offline cloze task revealed that both L2 groups demonstrated knowledge of L2 tense/aspect distinctions on a highly monitored fill-in-the-blank task in which the participants were able to take their time when responding. It was only by analyzing the reaction times from the on-line self-paced reading task (in real time) that the researchers were able to show that the French group was sensitive to tense/aspect violations, whereas the German group was not. Therefore, Roberts and Liszka (2013) propose that a combination of both on-line and offline measures can depict a more accurate account of L2 comprehension. On the one hand, an on-line task has the advantage of measuring implicit knowledge. And on the other hand, an offline task is able to measure explicit (metalinguistic) knowledge. Thus, the current study takes a similar approach to Roberts and Liszka (2013) in regards to implementing both on-line and offline methodologies. The next section of this dissertation examines the relevant L1 comprehension studies that have informed and influenced the present study.
32
L1 Comprehension Studies Several on-line sentence-picture matching experiments have shown that aspectual contrasts can constrain the comprehension of mental representations of situations with respect to the completion status of a situation. These studies have considered how grammatical aspect and lexical aspect effect L1 processing. For example, in one study, Madden and Zwaan (2003) used a sentence-picture matching task to demonstrate how (im)perfective aspect can effect native speakers‟ mental representations of a situation. (Im)perfective aspect are considered to be determining factors in the construction of situation models (Madden and Zwaan, 2003). Situation models are defined as mental representations of described events (Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998). Thus, Madden and Zwaan (2003) suggest that (im)perfective aspect can be used by the reader or listener as a set of linguistic processing cues that influence the comprehender‟s mental representation of a given situation. The notion that comprehenders can create an appropriate mental image of an event by processing aspectual cues suggests that comprehenders are influenced by verbal aspect as they try to form a concept of a situation in their mind. In other words, as it has been demonstrated by Madden and Zwaan (2003) manipulations of imperfective and perfective aspect have effected how comprehenders represent a situation in the past. In Experiment 1 of Madden and Zwaan‟s (2003) study, participants read sentences either in the perfective (“The boy built a doghouse) or in the imperfective (“The boy was building a doghouse”). The participants then had to determine which of two pictures best matched the sentence that was presented. The two pictures illustrated either; (a) a situation in-progress (i.e., of a half-built doghouse) or, (b) a completed situation (i.e., of a finished doghouse). In Experiment 2, the participants were presented with a sentence in the perfective or imperfective. Then, they were shown a picture that was either in-progress or completed. After the picture appeared on the screen, the participants were required to make a yes/no decision as to whether or not the picture matched the sentence. The participants were asked to make this judgment as quickly as possible because the reaction times were measured for the time (in milliseconds) that it took them to determine if the sentence matched the picture. In Experiment 3, the researchers simply reversed the order of the presentation. In this experiment, one of the picture versions (in-progress or completed) appeared first, and a sentence in the perfective or imperfective was presented next. Afterwards, the participants were asked to
33
judge whether the sentence matched the situation depicted in the picture. The goal of this third experiment was to determine whether the aspectual information in pictures of situations could facilitate the subsequent interpretation of a sentence containing similar aspectual information as compared with the picture. The results from all three experiments showed a clear effect for aspect. However, when each aspectual construction was examined separately, the participants did not appear to be sensitive to the imperfective aspectual cues. Only when the participants read the perfective sentences were they faster to respond to the matching picture, showing a preference for perfective over imperfective aspect (i.e., a perfective facilitation effect). In other words, the imperfective sentence-picture matches did not show an equal match benefit in comparison with the perfective sentence-picture matches. The researchers take these results to suggest that readers use aspectual cues when they construct a mental representation of a situation. Upon considering the pattern that was found in the data, mental representations were only formed under the perfective trial conditions. To explain this result, the Madden and Zwaan (2003) suggest that “not all comprehenders represent the imperfective sentences at the same intermediate stage of completion” (pg. 7). In contrast to imperfective events, perfective events are more clearly defined in terms of capturing the end point of the situation. For this reason, Madden and Zwaan assume that it would be more difficult to show the same benefit (i.e., a facilitation effect) with imperfective situations. The researchers concluded that sentences were more quickly matched to pictures of completed events because it is easier to define the mental representation of an event that is associated with a clear endpoint. Overall, Madden and Zwaan‟s (2003) experiments have been helpful in our understanding of how aspect influences mental representations of described situations during language comprehension. Yap et al. (2009) continued this line of research by investigating the effect of grammatical and lexical aspect on sentence processing and picture-matching by examining whether perfective facilitation would hold across two different verb types. Whereas Madden and Zwaan (2003) tested accomplishment type verbs, Yap et al. (2009) tested both accomplishment and activity type verbs. By testing both accomplishments (ACC) and activities (ACT), Yap et al. (2009) were able to examine verb type (i.e., lexical aspect) as an independent variable. Moreover, the researchers examined the effect of telicity on a forced choice sentence-picture
34
matching task. Crucially, for their experiment, accomplishments were categorized as telic (i.e., they are bound by an inherent endpoint), whereas activities were considered to be atelic (i.e., they do not have an inherent endpoint). The forced sentence-picture matching task consisted of three steps. First, the participants listened to a Cantonese sentence (which was audio recorded so that the participants could listen with headphones). Second, the participants were presented with two pictures. The interstimulus interval between the offset of the utterance and the onset of the pictures was 0 milliseconds. The pictures remained on the screen for a maximum of 3 seconds. During this time period of 3 seconds, the participants completed the third step of the task, in which they made a quick judgment to determine which of the two pictures best matched the sentence that they had just heard. Yap et al. (2009) found that during on-line processing of Cantonese, perfective sentences were processed more quickly and more accurately with accomplishment verbs, and imperfective sentences were processed more quickly and more accurately with activity verbs. The researchers suggested that these aspectual asymmetries materialized as a result of lexical aspect (i.e., verb type) interacting with grammatical aspect. For instance, there are known similarities between accomplishment verbs and the bounded features of the perfective aspect. Likewise, the unbounded features of the imperfective aspect are naturally linked to activity verbs. By demonstrating this dichotomy in the data, Yap et al. (2009) were able to observe the interaction between grammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Most notably, this finding indicated that verb type contributes to aspectual asymmetries during language processing. Furthermore, verb type plays a vital role in the formation of variations in the mental representation of events. To sum up, previous research (Madden & Zwaan, 2003; Yap et al., 2009) has maintained that skilled language comprehension requires sensitivity to aspectual cues. Moreover, these studies have indicated that lexical aspect and grammatical aspect contribute to the reader‟s mental model of a situation. Following the exemplar studies of Madden and Zwaan (2003) and Yap et al. (2009), the present study considers L1 and L2 comprehension of Spanish lexical and grammatical aspect.
35
Considerations for the Current Study The research design of the sentence-picture matching task of the current study is closely related to the research design of Madden and Zwann (2003) and Yap et al. (2009). First, the participants are presented with a sentence in the perfective or imperfective. Then, the participants are shown two pictures of the same event. One picture depicts the event as completed, while the other picture depicts the event as ongoing. As the participants are processing the two pictures of (a) the completed event and (b) the in-progress event, they are to be thinking of which picture best matches the sentence that they read previously. Just as Yap et al. (2009) predicted an asymmetrical effect for their binary forced choice sentence-picture matching task, I too predict an asymmetrical effect for the current binary forced choice sentence-picture matching task. In other words, I predict that that perfective aspect will constrain the readers‟ representations and interpretations of completed events. Similarly, the imperfective aspect is expected to constrain readers‟ representations and interpretations of ongoing events. As Yap et al. (2009) has suggested another asymmetrical effect is expected for activity verbs (which are naturally atelic) in comparison with accomplishment verbs (which are naturally telic). In particular, activity verbs should be easily processed with the imperfective sentences, whereas accomplishment verbs should be more easily interpreted with perfective sentences. Therefore, when a sentence appears with (a) an accomplishment verb and (b) an imperfective aspectual marking, it is expected that the L2 learner would need more processing time when choosing between the two pictures that best illustrate the sentence. In contrast, when a sentence appears with (a) an accomplishment verb and (b) a perfective aspectual marking, it is expected that the L2 learner will demonstrate what is called perfective facilitation (Madden and Zwaan, 2003; Yap et al., 2009). A perfective facilitation (i.e., processing advantage) was observed among native speakers of English for accomplishment verbs in a sentence-picture matching task (Madden and Zwann, 2003). In addition, a processing advantage was observed among native speakers of Cantonese for activity verbs that were paired with the imperfective aspect in a sentence-picture matching task (Yap et al., 2009). The findings from Yap et al. (2009) suggest that telicity has an effect on aspectual asymmetries during language processing. Furthermore, Yap et al. (2009) demonstrated that lexical aspectual properties of the verb interacted with grammatical aspectual properties of the
36
verb during language processing in Cantonese. The present study will also tease apart (a) lexical aspect (activity vs. accomplishment) from (b) grammatical aspect (imperfective vs. perfective) in a sentence-picture matching task. In this way, the present study will closely follow the research design of Yap et al. (2009), therefore demonstrating how L2 learners of Spanish process lexical and grammatical aspectual cues. There are several crucial differences that set the self-paced reading task of the current study apart from that of Roberts and Liszka (2013). The first major distinction between the two studies is that of sentence type. Roberts and Liszka (2013) examined matches and mismatches between a fronted temporal adverb and a morphological marker of tense/aspect on-line. In contrast, the present study examines aspect with logical and illogical sentences (without the use of adverbials). The use of adverbials does not always force a particular preference for either (a) the perfective aspect or (b) the imperfective aspect. As a result, adverbial phrases are not included in the present study, thus avoiding confounding variables from interfering with the experimental sentence design. Furthermore, the self-paced reading task of the current study utilizes illogical versus logical sentences by manipulating the morphological markers of aspect at the first verb region. The sentences of the current study follow a similar pattern to that of the exemplar sentences from Montrul and Slabakova (2003). Within the logical sentence conditions, the first verb phrase fits with the second verb phrase and with the entire sentence, therefore creating a logical scenario. Within the illogical sentence conditions, the first verb phrase does not fit with the other constituents that make up the sentence, therefore creating an illogical scenario. Another major distinction between the self-paced reading task of this dissertation and the self-paced reading task that was carried out by Roberts and Liszka (2013) concerns the group of participants and the target language being studied. Roberts and Liszka (2013) were interested in how L2 learners of English (with French and German L1 backgrounds) processed mismatches of tense/aspect. Instead, the current study analyzes L2 processing of mismatches among L2 learners of Spanish (with L1 English of varying proficiency levels). A third distinction between the two studies is that of verb type. Roberts and Liszka (2013) did not include verb type as a relevant variable of L2 processing. However, the present study examines the nature of statives, accomplishments, and achievements in regards to L2 processing. Given the importance of lexical aspect, this additional variable is expected to provide a better
37
understanding of L2 comprehension of aspect. Lastly, in Roberts and Liszka (2013), it was not clear what the L2 learners‟ and the native speakers‟ final interpretations of the sentences were, because the researchers did not ask the participants for their interpretations of the matched and mismatched conditions. The authors state that further research may need to address this issue as well as others. Other issues they mention include; L2 processing among participants of differing proficiency levels and L2 processing among participants of different L1-L2 pairings (i.e. comparing Romance Languages to Germanic Languages). Due to the existence of the imperfective aspect in Romance languages such as Spanish, the perfective-imperfective aspectual contrast is more complex in Romance languages than in Germanic languages. As a result of these cross-linguistic differences, the acquisition of L2 English aspect (among L1 French speakers) is expected to be a simpler process as compared to the L2 acquisition of Spanish aspect (among L1 English speakers). Thus, this dissertation will address some of the issues that were raised by Roberts and Liszka (2013) by examining L2 comprehension of Spanish aspect. Given that no on-line processing study of the perfectiveimperfective aspectual distinction exists in Spanish to date, the goal of this study is to examine how native and non-native speakers interpret L2 aspectual distinctions in Spanish in real time. The primary research questions and hypotheses for the tasks of the current study are proposed in the following section.
Research Questions and Hypotheses The current study raises seven important research questions and hypotheses for: (a) the offline cloze tasks, (b) the on-line sentence-picture matching task, and (c) the on-line self-paced reading task:
Research Question 1 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect choice of aspect on two offline cloze tasks in terms of accuracy?
Hypothesis 1 The L1 Spanish speakers will demonstrate the highest accuracy rates of the three groups, reflecting their native level comprehension skills of Spanish aspect. The L2 advanced learners
38
will demonstrate high accuracy rates. The L2 intermediate learners will demonstrate the lowest accuracy rates of the three groups.
Research Question 2 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect processing of aspect on a sentence-picture matching task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) response times?
Hypothesis 2 The L1 Spanish speakers will demonstrate the highest accuracy rates of the three groups. The L2 advanced learners will demonstrate high accuracy rates. The L2 intermediate learners will demonstrate the lowest accuracy rates of the three groups. The L1 Spanish speakers will demonstrate the fastest response times. The L2 advanced learners will demonstrate long response times. The L2 intermediate learners will demonstrate the longest response times.
Research Question 3 Does verb type (activities and accomplishments) affect processing of aspect on a sentence-picture matching task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) response times?
Hypothesis 3 Activities will be more accurate when paired with imperfective aspect. Accomplishments will be more accurate when paired with perfective aspect. Activities will be processed faster when paired with imperfective aspect. Accomplishments will be processed more quickly when paired with perfective aspect. Based on the findings of Madden and Zwaan (2003) and Yap et al. (2009), verb type is expected to affect processing of aspect on the sentence-picture matching task of the current study.
Research Question 4 Does perfectivity (perfective and imperfective aspect) affect processing of aspect on a sentence-picture matching task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) response times?
39
Hypothesis 4 Based on the findings from Madden and Zwaan (2003) and Yap et al. (2009), it is expected that perfective aspect will be processed more accurately and more quickly than imperfective aspect on the sentence-picture matching task.
Research Question 5 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect processing of aspect on a self-paced reading task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) reading times?
Hypothesis 5 The L1 Spanish speakers will demonstrate the highest accuracy rates of the three groups. The L2 advanced learners will demonstrate low accuracy rates. The L2 intermediate learners will demonstrate the lowest accuracy rates of the three groups. The L1 Spanish speakers will demonstrate the fastest reading times. The L2 advanced learners will demonstrate long reading times. The L2 intermediate learners will demonstrate the longest reading times.
Research Question 6 Does logicality (logical and illogical sentences) affect processing of aspect on a selfpaced reading task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) reading times?
Hypothesis 6 It is expected that the native speakers will slow down in reading times at the regions of interest for illogical sentences. It is not expected that the advanced and intermediate L2 learners will slow down at the regions of interest for illogical sentences. These predictions of native and non-native reading times are consistent with the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006), which would predict that L2 learners, even those who are more advanced, may not be sensitive to the logicality of aspect during real-time sentence processing. The L1 Spanish speakers are expected to process logical sentences more accurately and more quickly than illogical sentences. The L1 Spanish speakers are also expected to demonstrate the highest accuracy rates on the comprehension check (i.e., when determining whether the
40
sentence is logical or illogical). The L2 intermediate and advanced learners are not expected to perform well on the comprehension check. However, the L2 advanced learners are expected to be more accurate than the L2 intermediate learners in distinguishing logical sentences from illogical sentences.
Research Question 7 Does verb type (state, accomplishment, achievement) affect processing of aspect on a self-paced reading task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) reading times?
Hypothesis 7 As it has been demonstrated by the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 2000), it is expected that achievements and accomplishments will be processed more accurately and more quickly than stative verbs when paired with perfective aspect. To review, the Aspect Hypothesis predicts that the perfective aspect is acquired first, and the order of emergence is: achievement, accomplishment, activity, and state. Subsequently, the imperfective is acquired and the order of acquisition follows as: state, activity, accomplishment, and achievement. Therefore, it is predicted that the results of the current study will support the order of acquisition that has been established by the Aspect Hypothesis.
41
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Outline of the Chapter Chapter three provides a detailed account of the research design and methodology used for this investigation. More specifically, this chapter describes the experiments that were conducted to answer each of the research questions. The chapter outlines an overview of the research design and includes information on the participants, materials, data collection procedures, and data analysis for each experiment.
Research Study Design The purpose of the present study was to determine whether L2 learners of Spanish comprehend lexical and grammatical aspect similarly to L1 Spanish speakers. This research project utilized both online and offline methods in order to explore the particular processing problems that L2 learners face during comprehension of Spanish (im)perfective aspect. The present study consists of three main language tasks (i.e., two cloze tasks, a sentence-picture matching task, and a self-paced reading task). The cloze tasks include a story-in-context cloze task and an isolated sentence cloze task. These two cloze tasks are offline tasks in which the L2 participants were able to draw upon their explicit grammatical knowledge and make a conscious controlled decision about the meaning of a sentence by using their metalinguistic abilities. In contrast to the offline cloze tasks, both the sentence-picture matching task and the self-paced reading task are online tasks that investigate how native and non-native speakers of Spanish process lexical aspect and grammatical aspect in real time by measuring the participants‟ unconscious and automatic response to language stimuli. On the one hand, the forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task considers how aspect restricts the mental representation of the endpoint of a situation. On the other hand, the self-paced reading task examines how native and non-native speakers detect aspectual matches and mismatches between logical and illogical sentences. The next section of this chapter presents information about the research procedure that was used for the current study.
42
Research Study Procedure The order of the tasks that were completed by all three groups of participants is summarized below: 1. Consent Form 2. Language History Questionnaire 3. Self-Paced Reading Task 4. Sentence-Picture Matching Task 5. Free Response Questions 6. Cloze Tasks 7. Debriefing Form Crucially, the offline cloze tasks were completed after the online self-paced reading task and sentence-picture matching task. This procedural order ensured that the participants were not explicitly clued in to the target grammatical form (i.e., perfective and imperfective aspect) on the first two online experiments, which were designed to measure implicit knowledge of the target form. The next section of this chapter presents information about the participants who completed the experiments of the current study.
Participants The participants consisted of three main groups of; (a) 35 native Spanish speakers, (b) 33 advanced L2 learners and, (c) 30 intermediate L2 learners. The intermediate and advanced learners were native speakers of English who were studying Spanish as either their minor (i.e., for the L2 intermediate learners) or major (i.e., for the L2 advanced learners) at Florida State University. Among the L2 learners, the longest length of time abroad in a Spanish speaking country was 2 years and 5 months. The native Spanish speakers, however, were students at the University of San Carlos of Guatemala who were considered to be Spanish dominant. A more detailed description of all three participant groups is provided below.
43
Intermediate L2 Spanish Learners All of the intermediate level L2 Spanish learners were recruited from a fifth and sixth semester Spanish language course at Florida State University (listed as SPN 3300 and SPN 3400 respectively). The fifth semester course called „Grammar and Composition‟ is primarily focused on grammar and writing skills in Spanish. The sixth semester course called „Reading and Conversation‟ is primarily focused on the discussion of short texts in Spanish. In the first semester of Spanish, the students of the Spanish Basic Language Program are initially exposed to perfective aspect. Then, in the second semester of the Spanish Basic Language Program, the students are exposed to the imperfective aspect. In addition, during their second semester of Spanish, the students are encouraged to use both perfective and imperfective aspect in communicative activities. Even so, second semester Spanish students are also introduced to other grammatical forms apart from perfective and imperfective aspect, and there is no specific focus on the past tense during the second semester of Spanish. Later, in the third and fourth semesters of Spanish, the students are expected to have developed a deeper knowledge of perfective and imperfective aspect. In the third and fourth semesters of Spanish, the students are also exposed to the past tense uses in more meaningful contexts. Consequently, according to the curriculum, the fifth and sixth semester Spanish language learners should have several semesters of prior exposure to the aspectual distinctions between the perfective and imperfective. Crucially, the L2 intermediate Spanish learners are students who are studying Spanish as their minor at Florida State University.
Advanced L2 Spanish Learners The advanced learners of Spanish were recruited from the Advanced Spanish 4000 and 5000 level courses. The advanced L2 learners are students who are studying Spanish as their major at Florida State University. They consist of undergraduate and graduate students who are taking upper level language, literature, and linguistics courses. The graduate students of the advanced group of learners teach the first three semesters of Spanish (SPN 1120, SPN 1121, and SPN 2220) and take courses at the 5000 level. In comparison, the undergraduate students of the advanced group take courses at the 4000 level. To be clear, the undergraduate Spanish Major requires 30 semester hours, divided up into 15 semester hours at the 3000 level and 15 semester hours at the 4000 level. Second, the Master‟s in Spanish is divided up into 30 semester hours at
44
the 5000 level. Lastly, the Doctorate in Spanish consists of an additional 30 semester hours at the 5000 level. The graduate students who study Spanish and Latin Literature were more heavily recruited than those who study Spanish Linguistics, therefore minimizing any test taking strategies that the Linguistics‟ students may have formed. Provided that many students of Linguistics are familiar with the types of tasks and linguistic forms that were examined in the current study, the researcher kept their participation to a minimum. There were 9 graduate students and 24 undergraduate students who made up the L2 advanced group.
Native Spanish Speakers Lastly, the native speaker group was recruited from the University of San Carlos of Guatemala, where the student population has a first language of Spanish. The native speaker group consisted of students who are Spanish dominant. Even though, these students may be exposed to other languages (i.e., English or indigenous languages of the region) in school or at home, they grew up in a Spanish dominant environment and indicated that Spanish is their first language. The native speakers are the experts in the language, who are recognized in this investigation as a control group.
Pre and Post Experimental Materials The pre and post experimental materials included the consent form (pre-experiment), the language history questionnaire (pre-experiment), the free response questions (after the first and second experiments), and the debriefing form (after all three experiments). These pre and post experimental materials are described in the next section.
Consent Form The consent form was provided to all of the participants as soon as possible. The consent form informed the participants of the nature of the tasks and ensured them that their participation was completely voluntary. The consent form can be found in Appendix G (in English) and Appendix H (in Spanish).
45
Language History Questionnaire The participants of this study were asked to fill out a language history questionnaire immediately after they read and signed the informed consent form, and immediately before they began the self-paced reading task. For the language history questionnaire, participants reported their experiences with their first language and their second language. In addition, they were asked to rate their proficiency in both languages in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. This language history questionnaire is used to gain meaningful and detailed background information about the participants‟ previous experience(s) with both Spanish and English. The language history questionnaire that was used for the native speakers of Spanish and the non-native speakers of Spanish can be found in Appendix A.
Free Response Questions In order to better understand what the participants were thinking while they were completing the self-paced reading task (Experiment 1) and the sentence-picture matching task (Experiment 2), two free response questions were given to the participants immediately after finishing Experiments 1 and 2, asking them what they noticed about each of the experiments. The researcher told the participants that she was aiming to understand their thought process as they went through the experiments. Therefore, if the participants picked up on any patterns, it would be helpful to mention that in their free response. Also, the participants could mention any difficulties they had with either of the experiments, so that the researcher would be able to better understand any processing issues they may have had that are not demonstrated by the results of the experiments themselves. The free response questions can be found in Appendix D.
Debriefing Form The debriefing form was given to the participants after they finished completing all of the tasks. This form included information about the purpose of the study and provided the contact information of the researcher and the Chair of Human Subject Committee of the Institutional Review Board. In the debriefing form it was clearly stated that any participant could contact the researcher if they are interested in receiving a copy of the results of the study or if they have further questions regarding the study. Finally, the debriefing form thanked the participants for their participation. The debriefing form can be found in Appendix I.
46
Cloze Tasks The cloze tasks were used to measure the participants‟ baseline knowledge of tense and aspect on two explicit and highly monitored offline tasks. A cloze task is a fill-in-the-blank task that is commonly used in most foreign language classrooms. Therefore, an L2 learner who has received formal classroom instruction should be quite familiar with cloze activities. In an offline task such as this one, participants can take their time to think about the meaning of the sentence before they make a decision about which verb form to choose. In addition, given that these fillin-the-blank tasks are of a binary choice, the participants have a 50% chance to choose the correct answer (choosing between perfective and imperfective aspect). For these cloze tasks the independent variable is Group (L1 Spanish speakers, L2 advanced learners, and L2 intermediate learners) and the dependent variable is Accuracy Rates.
Materials This section describes the materials that were used for: (a) the story-in-context cloze task and (b) the isolated sentence cloze task. The story-in-context cloze task was a fill-in-the-blank task of the well-known children‟s story „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟ (Ricitos de Oro y los Tres Ositos‟). The first two sentences of the story-in-context cloze task are provided below as an example of the task at hand:
_________ (Había, hubo) una vez tres osos que _________ (vivían, vivieron) en el bosque: papá oso, mamá osa y el pequeño osito. Un día mamá osa _________ (hacía, hizo) una sopa de arroz con pollo y _________ (ponía, puso) tres platos en la mesa. „Once upon a time there lived three bears in the forest: papa bear, mama bear, and little bear. One day mama bear made a rice and chicken soup and put three plates on the table.‟
The second cloze task consisted of isolated sentences (without a story context). The example sentences below exemplify the types of sentences that were presented to the participants in the isolated sentences cloze task.
47
(13) ______ (Fue/Era) muy tarde cuando regresamos a casa anoche. „It was late when we came home last night.‟ (14) Después de una explicación, el estudiante _____ (entendió/entendía) la respuesta. „After an explanation, the student understood the answer.‟
To be clear, the isolated sentence cloze task consisted of separate sentences that were not related whatsoever. In other words, there was no common theme among these isolated sentences. For example, sentence (13) is completely unrelated to sentence (14). And although the story-incontext cloze task provided a familiar story context that is well known in many cultures, the isolated sentence cloze task did not provide such rich and contextualized background information. Complete examples of both of the cloze tasks can be found in Appendix E.
Procedure For the first cloze task, the learners were asked to read a story set in the past tense in which many of the verbs are missing. The story that was selected is „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟ („Ricitos de Oro y los Tres Ositos‟). The participants had to choose the correct verb from a set of two possible verb forms (one verbal form was in the perfective and the other was marked by the imperfective). The participants were required to circle the correct form, using either the perfective or the imperfective morphological marker. The second cloze task is very similar to the first cloze task; however, the sentences were not presented in a story context, but rather as isolated sentences. Just like the story-in-context cloze task, the participants were asked to choose the correct form of the verb for each sentence, therefore determining if the perfective or imperfective aspect was more appropriate.
Data Analysis The cloze task data were analyzed using a Univariate ANOVA with Post Hoc (LSD) tests, with an alpha level set to .05. Group (L1 Spanish speakers, L2 advanced learners, and L2 intermediate learners) served as the between-subjects independent variable, and accuracy served as the within-subjects dependent variable. The main statistics that were generated for this
48
analysis were the mean; the average score attained by the subjects, and the standard deviation; the average variability of all the scores around the mean.
Sentence-Picture Matching Task There are three main steps to completing the forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task. First, the participants read a sentence that either contains the perfective or imperfective aspect of the past tense in Spanish. Second, the participants are presented with two pictures that show both a completed event and an on-going event. Third, the participants make a decision as to which picture best represents the sentence that they read in the first step. The independent variables of this experiment include (1) group, (2) lexical aspect, and (3) grammatical aspect. Three groups of participants completed the sentence-picture matching task (i.e., the L2 intermediate learners, L2 advanced learners, and the L1 Spanish speakers). In addition, two verb types are included in this experiment: activities (atelic events) and accomplishments (telic events). Grammatical aspect (i.e., perfective vs. imperfective aspect) is also accounted for as a crucial independent factor for this experiment. For the dependent variables, the time it takes for the participants to choose the picture that better matches the sentence is measured in milliseconds. In addition, the participants‟ accuracy in matching the picture that better represents the sentence is measured by the number of items answered correctly out of the total number of items. The independent and dependent variables for the sentencepicture matching task are summarized in the table below.
Table 3.1. Variables for the Binary Forced Choice Sentence-Picture Matching Task: Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Group (Proficiency Level)
Reaction Times
Lexical Aspect (Verb Type)
Accuracy Rates
Grammatical Aspect (Perfectivity)
49
Materials For this experiment, a pictorial representation of a finished event is utilized to exemplify the perfective aspect. Likewise, a pictorial representation of an on-going event is implemented to illustrate the imperfective aspect. Following Madden and Zwaan (2003) and Yap et al. (2009), these pictures are considered to be appropriate pictorial representations of the perfective and imperfective contrasts. The pictures are black line-drawn images that are displayed on a white background from established pictured stimuli (picture credit goes to: Madden & Zwaan, 2003 and Yap et al., 2009). The majority of pictures presented in the current study were borrowed from the Yap et al. (2009) study because this group of researchers used both activities and accomplishments in order to tease apart lexical aspect (i.e., verb type) as a crucial variable. Some pictures were also used from Madden & Zwaan (2003) who exclusively used accomplishment type verbs. The materials consist of 24 experimental sentences; 12 of the sentence pairs depict activity events, and the remaining 12 sentence pairs depict accomplishment events. Each pair of sentences consists of; one event that is marked by the perfective morphological marker and another event that is marked by the imperfective morphological marker. The pictures that are used for this experiment have been taken from Yap et al. (2009) and Madden & Zwaan (2003). Their pictures were well drawn to match with each experimental sentence. An example of an activity verb sentence pair and picture pair is provided below: (15) a. El hombre tocó el piano. „The man played the piano.‟ b. El hombre tocaba el piano. „The man was playing the piano.‟
Firgure 3.1. Example sentence and picture pair for the activity verb type
50
An example of an accomplishment verb sentence pair and picture pair can be seen below: (16) a. La chica puso la mesa. „The girl set the table.‟ b. La chica ponía la mesa. „The girl was setting the table.‟
Firgure 3.2. Example sentence and picture pair for the accomplishment verb type
Filler Items The fillers for this experiment consist of sentence and picture pairs with reversed roles (i.e., a girl kissing a grandmother and a grandmother kissing a girl). Following the same procedure as the experimental stimuli, the participant reads one of these sentences (i.e., „The girl kisses the grandmother‟). Immediately after reading the sentence, the participant sees two pictures appear on the screen and must choose which picture best corresponds to the sentence that they just read. This common distracter task is also known as “Who did what to whom?”. There were 24 fillers and 24 target items for each list, amounting to 48 stimuli per list.
Counterbalancing For this sentence-picture matching experiment, two stimuli sets (i.e., two lists of stimuli) were created to counterbalance the target sentences and pictures. In terms of sentence counterbalancing, grammatical aspect (imperfective vs. perfective) and the lexical aspect (activity vs. accomplishment) were counterbalanced. In each stimulus set, half of the sentences were presented with the imperfective marker and the other half of the sentences were presented with the perfective marker. In addition, half of the sentences were presented with activity verbs and the other half of the sentences were presented with accomplishment verbs.
51
Table 3.2. Sentence Counterbalancing Lexical Aspect
Grammatical Aspect
Activity
+ Perfective, - Perfective
Accomplishment
+ Perfective, - Perfective
Likewise, half of the correct pictures were presented on the left-hand side of the computer screen, and the other half of the correct pictures were presented on the right side of the screen. In addition, half of the sentences contain activity verbs and half of the sentences contain accomplishment verbs. Furthermore, half of the pictures represent on-going events, and half of the pictures represent completed events. The presentation order of all of these sets was randomized, and the participants were randomly assigned to only one stimulus set.
Table 3.3. Picture Counterbalancing Verb Type
Event Type
Match
Orientation
Accomplishment
+ Completed
+ Match,
+Left side
+ In-Progress
+ Mismatch
+Right side
+ Completed
+ Match,
+Left side
+ In-Progress
+ Mismatch
+Right side
Activity
Instructions and Practice Session For the sentence-picture matching experiment, the participants are provided with written instructions explaining how to complete the task. Then, the participants are asked to complete the practice session (which consists of four practice items) before they move on to the task itself. The practice session gives the participants an idea of what to expect during the task, therefore boosting their familiarity with the task. That way, the participants become familiar with the task before the experiment begins.
52
Fixation Cue Once the participants have completed the practice session, an asterisk (*) appears in the middle of the screen for 1 second. The asterisk is used as a fixation cue to redirect the participant‟s gaze to the area on the screen to where the first sentence will appear. Procedure Upon the press of the spacebar, the fixation cue would disappear from the screen and the sentence would then appear on the screen. Once the sentence appeared on the screen, the participants read that sentence in its entirety, unlike the self-paced reading task, which was broken up into segments. Each sentence was either presented in the perfective or imperfective aspect in Spanish. Immediately after reading the sentence, the participants pressed the spacebar on the keyboard. As the participant pressed the spacebar, the sentence disappeared from the screen and two pictures appeared on the computer screen side by side. The interval between the offset of the sentence and the onset of the pictures was less than 1 millisecond. Then, the pictures remained on the screen for a maximum of 3 seconds. During that time, the participants had to determine which picture best matched the sentence that they read at the beginning of the trial. If the participants chose the picture on the left side of the screen, then they would press the “F” key on the keyboard with their left index finger. The “F” key is located on the left side of the keyboard and the “F” key is where the index finger falls when typing on a standard keyboard, thus participants used the “F” key for any picture that they chose on the left side of the computer screen. Similarly, the “J” key was used with the right index finger in order to demonstrate that they have chosen the picture on the right side of the screen as a better match for the sentence that they read. If the participants were not able to make a judgment during the allotted 3 seconds, then their response was rejected and considered incorrect. For this experiment, sentences that contain the imperfective aspect are expected to match with pictures that depict an on-going event, and sentences that contain the perfective aspect are expected to match with pictures that depict a completed event. The stimuli were presented visually on a PC computer with the experimental SuperLab 5 software (Cedrus Corporation, 2014). Figure 3.3 displays an example of the sentence-picture matching procedure below:
53
A. Presentation of either a perfective or imperfective sentence: El niño hacía un hombre de nieve. The boy make-IMP a snowman „The boy was making a snowman.‟ B. Presentation of a pair of pictures depicting an on-going versus completed event:
C. Decision of which picture best matches the sentence Figure 3.3. Sentence-picture matching task procedure
The correct pictorial representation of the sentence from Figure 3.3 demonstrates that the boy is still in the process of making a snowman (i.e., as per the picture that is shown on the left). Correspondingly, the picture that is shown to the right does not match with the imperfective reading of an event-in-progress. In other words, the example sentence of the boy who was making a snowman depicts an event that is not yet completed. The picture on the left side clearly illustrates this concept, given that the boy is still rolling a ball of snow, without having completed his task of making a snowman.
Data Analysis The sentence-picture matching task generated data on the participants‟ accuracy rates and reaction times. Furthermore, statistical analyses were conducted in order to demonstrate how each participant group performed on the conditions of Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Aspect. Mean accuracy and reaction times were submitted to a Factorial ANOVA with repeated measures, with two levels of lexical aspect (activities and accomplishments) and two levels of grammatical aspect (perfective and imperfective) as a within-subjects factor, and three levels of
54
participants (native speakers, intermediate learners, and advanced learners) as between-subjects factor.
Self-Paced Reading Task This dissertation utilized a self-paced reading task to compare reading times between logical and illogical circumstances in Spanish. As a part of the self-paced reading task, the participants were asked to determine whether or not the sentence they read was logical. All of the sample sentences consist of coordinated clauses that are conjoined by a conjunctional phrase. Some of the combinations make sense, and others are contradictory (as marked by the *) as shown in Appendix B of the self-paced reading materials. The sentences that are contradictory and therefore illogical are expected to produce longer reading times, therefore indicating a processing difficulty. As it has been noted by Jegerski & VanPatten (2014), stimuli that include violations of linguistic principles (e.g., aspect) tend to be associated with longer reading times at or after the point of the violation. This trend can be explained by the time it takes the parser to try to incorporate the ungrammatical item into the sentence when it clearly does not fit with the other parts of the sentence. Therefore, the participants may show longer reading times at the region of the violation and/or at the spill-over regions (after the violation was made). Below, Table 3.4 outlines the independent and dependent variables for the self-paced reading task.
Table 3.4. Independent and Dependent Variables for the Self-Paced Reading Task: Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Group (Proficiency Level)
Reaction Times
Sentence Type (Logicality)
Accuracy Rates
Reading times for the on-line sentence comprehension task were collected using the noncumulative moving-window technique (Just, Carpenter, & Wooly, 1982). The moving window technique allows the participants to read each segment of the sentence one at a time by pressing the space bar to pace their reading. The reading times were recorded in milliseconds for each button press, therefore recording the length of time that it took the participants to read each
55
segment. After reading each sentence, the participants were asked to answer a comprehension question related to the sentence that they just read. The comprehension question asked the participants to determine whether or not the sentence was logical.
Materials As illustrated in Figure 3.4, the moving window technique allows the participants to read each segment of the sentence one at a time by pressing the space bar to self-pace their reading. Figure 3.4 shows an example of an experimental sentence that consisted of eight segments, which required nine button presses.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
__ _____ _____ _____ ________ ____ ____ __________________ _________. El equipo __ _____ perdía __ _____ _____ contra __ _____ _____ _____ los rivales __ _____ _____ _____ ________ pero __ _____ _____ _____ ________ ____ ganó __ _____ _____ _____ ________ ____ ____ en los últimos minutos __ _____ _____ _____ ________ ____ ____ __________________ del partido.
Comprehension check: Is this sentence logical? Yes or No Figure 3.4. Self-paced reading: Non-cumulative linear format with phrase-by-phrase segmentation As Figure 3.4 shows, after the participants read each sentence, they received a comprehension question to verify their ability to discern the meaning of each sentence. For this experiment, the illogical sentence conditions contain violations of grammatical aspect. More specifically, regions 6-8 were of particular interest, given that the second verb causes an ungrammatical reading for illogical sentences such as (17b). Thus, mean reading times were calculated and analyzed for regions 6-8 (i.e., the critical regions). As (17a) and (17b) demonstrate, Region 6 is the second verb phrase and regions 7 and 8 are the spill-over regions.
56
(17a) Logical sentence example: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
El equipo/ perdía/ contra/ los rivales/ pero/ ganó/ en los últimos minutos/ del partido. „The team was losing against their rivals but won in the last minutes of the game‟. (17b) Illogical sentence example: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
*El equipo/ perdió/ contra/ los rivales/ pero/ ganó/ en los últimos minutos/ del partido. *„The team lost against their rivals but won in the last minutes of the game‟. The sentences that have been created for this self-paced reading task (see Appendices) follow the basic properties that can be seen in Slabakova and Montrul‟s (2002) materials. In Slabakova and Montrul (2002), learners were asked to judge whether two conjoined clauses were semantically plausible as in (18a) and (18b). (18a) La clase era a las 10 pero empezó a las 10:30. The class was-IMP at 10 but started at 10:30. „The class was supposed to be at 10, but started at 10:30‟. (18b) *La clase fue a las 10 pero empezó a las 10:30. *The class was-PERF at 10 but started at 10:30. In example sentence (18a), the first verb expresses the imperfective aspect. Given that the first event in (18a) is not viewed as bounded or terminated, then the second event can subsequently be interpreted as acceptable and plausible. However, in (18b) the first event is viewed as bounded and terminated, therefore generating an illogical reading for which the second event does not logically fit with the first event in the sentence. Overall, these two conditions demonstrate two different versions of the same sentence pair. In other words, the only difference between (18a) and (18b) is the use of the imperfective in (18a) and perfective in (18b). This distinction of perfectivity only occurs at the first verb phrase, leaving the rest of the 57
sentence exactly the same as its counterpart. Consequently, this task tests the knowledge of bounded and unbounded interpretations of perfective and imperfective aspect with stative, accomplishment, and achievement verbs.
Sentence Length and Complexity For this self-paced reading task, each segment or region matches its counterpart in syntactic complexity. In other words the first segment of each sentence begins with a determiner phrase, and the second segment of every sentence always consists of a verb phrase and so on. For any self-paced reading task, it is suggested that at least 7 words are used in any given sentence, so that participants process the input as a whole rather than memorize the input as chunks. The experimental sentences for this self-paced reading task consist of eight segments that are similar in length and linguistic complexity.
Counterbalancing Given that the experimental items (i.e., target items) consist of one logical sentence for every illogical sentence, the filler items also include an equal number of logical and illogical sentences. In addition, the filler items, similarly to the target items, consist of sentences that contain an equal distribution of perfective and imperfective aspect. The target sentences comprise 50% of the stimuli, and the filler sentences comprise 50% of the stimuli. The target sentences consist of 24 pairs (logical and illogical), with a total of 48 target sentences. The target sentences are distributed evenly with; 8 sentence pairs per verb type (statives, accomplishments, and achievements). Finally there are 24 filler sentences per list and 24 target sentences per list. There are two lists and each list was counterbalanced. The target items contain (a) logical sentences with the first event in the imperfective and the second event in the perfective, and (b) illogical sentences with the first and second events in the perfective. The filler items contain (a) logical sentences with the first and second events in the perfective, and (b) illogical sentences with the first and second events in the imperfective. Below, Table 3.5 demonstrates how each sentence condition was counterbalanced so that each participant was exposed to all experimental and filler sentence conditions.
58
Table 3.5. Counterbalancing of Sentence Conditions Verb Type Condition
Sentence Type
Logicality Condition
State
Experimental Sentence
+Logical, -Logical
Accomplishment
Filler Sentence
+Logical, -Logical
Achievement
+Logical, -Logical
Filler Items Filler sentences are used to disguise the purpose of the task from participants and to keep the participants from developing expectations about the nature of the task. If the participants are able to anticipate a pattern in the task, they may be able to develop a test taking strategy. As a consequence, fillers are utilized in order to vary the types of sentences that are presented to the participants. For the SPR task, fillers are similar to the target sentences in that they also include an equal number of logical and illogical sentences. In addition, these filler sentences are balanced for perfective and imperfective aspect.
Instructions and Practice Session Each experimental session began with the presentation of written instructions on a computer screen, explaining how to complete the task. After receiving these instructions, the participants would complete a practice session before moving on to the task itself. The practice session consisted of four sentences that were self-paced and that included a comprehension question after each sentence. The practice session walks the participants through the procedure of the task and gives the participants an idea of what to expect during the task, therefore boosting their familiarity with the task before the actual experiment begins.
Fixation Cue Once the participants have completed the practice session, and indicate that they are ready to move on to the first experiment, an asterisk (*) appears in the middle of the screen for 1 second. The asterisk is simply a small symbol that serves as a cue. The cue is used to direct the participants‟ gaze at the screen. That way, their eyes are already fixed on the screen in the vicinity of where the first segment/word of the sentence will appear. 59
Non-Cumulative Moving Window Procedure Immediately after being presented with the cue, the stimuli sentences are presented visually segment-by-segment, in a linear non-cumulative moving window procedure (Just, Carpenter, & Wooley, 1982) on a computer screen with the experimental SuperLab 5 software (Cedrus Corporation, 2014). In the linear non-cumulative presentation, the participant uses the spacebar on the computer keyboard in order to continue from one segment to the next. Upon the press of the spacebar, the current segment disappears and the next segment appears, until all of the segments have been read. Thus, the participant has the ability to self-pace his or her reading. Due to this procedure, participants cannot go back and re-read previous words/phrases. The Superlab software records the participants‟ reaction times and accuracy rates. Comprehension Check After reading each region of a given sentence, the participants were asked to determine if the sentence that they just read was logical. This short comprehension check is integrated as a part of the task to check that the participants have comprehended the meaning of the sentences. Moreover, this comprehension check prompts the participants to read for meaning rather than for speed.
Data Analysis This last section of chapter three provides a brief summary of the data analysis procedure for the self-paced reading task. The statistical analysis for the SPR task was run for accuracy rates and reaction times. For this task, certain participants and items were excluded from the final statistical analysis (see chapter 4). For the participants‟ accuracy rates, the researchers were interested in knowing how each participant group performed on the conditions of Sentence Type and Verb Type. For the reaction time data, we were interested in finding out how each participant group performed on the condition of Sentence Type. For all statistical analyses, a Factorial ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted for Type and Group. The within subjects factors were Sentence Type (logical and illogical) and Verb Type (stative, accomplishment, and achievement), and the between subjects factor was Group (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners). Thus, the independent variables consisted of three categorical variables: Group, Sentence Type, and Verb
60
Type. The dependent variable consists of two continuous variables: Reaction Times and Accuracy Rates. A key interest of the reaction time data analysis is the main effects of grammaticality, in which readers respond differently to grammatical and ungrammatical regions of interest during real-time comprehension. In the case of this particular reaction time study, the primary regions of interest are regions 6, and 7, and 8. Region 6 is the location of the aspectual violation in ungrammatical sentences (i.e., the location of the second verb, where the sentence no longer makes logical sense). Regions 7 and 8 are the spillover regions. The time it takes to process a given region may „spill over‟ to the next region(s). A „spill-over effect‟ would then delay any sensitivity (shown in milliseconds) to the regions that follow the target region (i.e., the regions that follow the second verb). Therefore, the regions of interest for the reaction time data analysis were restricted to regions 6, 7, and 8. If a significant interaction between group and sentence type was found, an analysis of simple main effects with a Bonferroni adjustment was conducted to explore the interaction. In addition, ANOVAs were conducted on the critical regions of the sentence (i.e., Verb, Verb +1, and Verb +2), but also on non-critical regions that appeared prior to the critical regions. The results of the ANOVA analyses on non-critical regions were only reported when there was a significant main effect or interaction.
61
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Outline of the Chapter This chapter presents the results of four different tasks: (a) a story in-context cloze task, (b) an isolated sentence cloze task, (c) a forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task, and (d) a self-paced reading task. The chapter breaks down the results of these four tasks into three sections. First, the accuracy results from both cloze tasks are presented. Second, the accuracy and reaction time results from the forced binary choice sentence-picture matching task are presented. Third, the accuracy and reaction time results from the self-paced reading task are presented. Subsequently, the discussion of the results appears in Chapter 5.
Offline and On-line Tasks The story-in-context cloze task and isolated sentence cloze task (i.e., highly monitored offline tasks) were used to measure the participants‟ knowledge of perfective and imperfective aspect. A secondary objective of the cloze tasks was to determine the participants‟ gaps in knowledge, comparing the offline cloze tasks with the on-line tasks (i.e., the sentence-picture matching task and self-paced reading task). This comparison between offline and on-line comprehension is crucial, given that the two processes are very different. Whereas offline tasks have no time limit and allow the participants to think about the meaning of the sentence and potentially access metalinguistic information before making a decision, on-line comprehension tasks allow less time for metalinguistic abilities to be engaged. Furthermore, according to VanPatten, Keating, and Leeser (2012), “the advantage of on-line methods in L2 research is that they avoid the potential introspection and resultant tapping of explicit knowledge that can come from paper-and-pencil tests [i.e., offline measures] (pg. 118).”
Cloze Tasks A brief explanation of each cloze task is provided here to remind the reader of the task at hand. A cloze task is a fill-in-the-blank task that is commonly used in most foreign language classrooms. The first cloze task consisted of a story-in-context. The story was „Ricitos de Oro y
62
los Tres Ositos‟ also known as „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟. The story was narrated in the past tense and several verbs are missing in each of the various sentences. The participants were asked to choose the correct form of the verb from a set of two possible verb forms (one verbal form was provided in the perfective and the other in the imperfective). The first two sentences of the story are provided below as an example of the task at hand: _________ (Había, hubo) una vez tres osos que _________ (vivían, vivieron) en el bosque: papá oso, mamá osa y el pequeño osito. Un día mamá osa _________ (hacía, hizo) una sopa de arroz con pollo y _________ (ponía, puso) tres platos en la mesa. „Once upon a time _________ there were three bears that ________ lived in the forest: papa bear, mama bear, and little bear. One day mama bear ________ made a rice and chicken soup and _________ put three plates on the table.‟ For the second cloze task, which consisted of isolated sentences (without a story context), the participants were asked to choose the correct form of the verb, therefore determining if the perfective or imperfective aspect was more appropriate. The two exemplar sentences below demonstrate the types of sentences that were presented to the participants in the isolated sentences cloze task. (19) Carla _____ (vino/venía) a recoger a su hermano de la escuela, pero se perdió en el camino. „Carla was coming to pick up her brother from school, but she got lost along the way.‟ (20) Después de una explicación, el estudiante ______ (entendió/entendía) la respuesta. „After an explanation, the student understood the answer.‟ Overall, for both cloze tasks the participants were asked to choose between perfective and imperfective aspect. Now that the reader has been reacquainted with the story-in context cloze task of „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟ and the isolated sentences cloze task, the next section of this chapter will review how items were excluded from each of these cloze tasks.
63
Item exclusion Prior to conducting a statistical analysis of the cloze task data, the native speaker data was examined to determine whether any items were responded to inconsistently among the native speakers. For the story-in-context cloze task of „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟ all 40 verbs were included in the final scores. All of the native speakers performed similarly and consistently on this task. Therefore, none of the sentences were excluded from the story-incontext cloze task. For the isolated sentences cloze task, however, 10 of the original 27 sentences were excluded, amounting to a total of 17 sentences which were considered in the final scoring of this task for all three groups. Without providing enough of a context, 10 of the 27 sentences could be interpreted either way, using the perfective or imperfective aspect. Therefore, only the sentences that: (a) provided enough of a sentence context and (b) were answered consistently by native speakers were included in the final accuracy scores.
Cloze Tasks: Accuracy Results Table 4.1 displays the descriptive statistics for each participant group for the isolated sentence cloze task. As the table demonstrates by the overall mean scores of the three groups, the L1 Spanish speakers performed the best out of the three groups, and the L2 advanced learners performed better than the L2 intermediate learners.
Table 4.1 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for the isolated sentence cloze task Group
M
SD
Intermediate
74.85
15.95
Advanced
81.28
17.43
L1 Spanish
89.75
7.04
The Univariate Analysis for the isolated sentence cloze task revealed a main effect for Group, F(2, 94)= 9.10, p Advanced
.09
.03
.015
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
.15
.04
Intermediate
.15
.02
Intermediate
.08
.02
Intermediate
14.95
2.18
Intermediate
7.82
2.21
.001
66
The comparisons between groups for both cloze tasks show that the L1 Spanish speakers significantly outperformed the L2 learner groups, and the L2 advanced learners significantly outperformed the L2 intermediate learners.
Summary of the Results from the Cloze Tasks All three participant groups performed better on the story-in-context cloze task than on the isolated sentence cloze task. Furthermore, all three participant groups performed best on the story-in-context cloze task as compared to the other two on-line tasks of this study (i.e., the sentence-picture matching task and the self-paced reading task). To summarize the results of both cloze tasks, the Univariate ANOVA and Post Hoc tests revealed that the native Spanish speakers outperformed the L2 learners and the L2 advanced learners performed better than the L2 intermediate learners.
Sentence-Picture Matching Task A brief explanation of the Forced Binary Choice Sentence-Picture Matching Task is provided here to remind the reader of the task at hand. First, the participants were asked to read a sentence that either contained perfective or imperfective aspect. Second, the participants were presented with two pictures, one picture that depicted a completed event and another picture that depicted an on-going event. Third, the participants were asked to make a decision as to which picture best represented the sentence that they read. For this experiment, sentences that contain the imperfective aspect are expected to match with pictures that depict an on-going event, and sentences that contain the perfective aspect are expected to match with pictures that depict a completed event. The exemplar sentences and pictures below display the types of sentences and pictures that were presented to the participants during this sentence-picture matching task. (21) a. El hombre tocó el piano. „The man played the piano.‟ (21) b. El hombre tocaba el piano. „The man was playing the piano.‟
67
Figure 4.1. Sentence-Picture Matching Procedure Example
Participant Inclusion Criteria This research study began with an initial sample size of 98 total participants consisting of 30 intermediate L2 learners, 33 advanced L2 learners, and 35 native Spanish speakers. A criterion of 70% accuracy was adopted to exclude participants based on incorrect responses. Therefore, participants with an error rate of 30% or higher were excluded. Based on these criteria, 15 total participants were excluded; 4 intermediate L2 learners, 3 advanced L2 learners, and 8 native Spanish speakers. Thus, only 83 participants were included in the final analyses for this task, consisting of 26 intermediate L2 learners, 30 advanced L2 learners, and 27 native Spanish speakers.
Item Exclusion Because Madden & Zwaan (2003) used the same pictures and sentences in English for accomplishment verbs and Yap et al. (2009) used the same pictures and sentences in Cantonese for activities and accomplishment verbs, there were no items excluded from the final analyses for the sentence-picture matching task of the current study.
Sentence-Picture Matching Task: Accuracy Results Table 4.7 displays the descriptive statistics for each participant group for grammatical aspect (perfective or imperfective aspect) and lexical aspect (activity or accomplishment verbs). As the table below demonstrates, the L1 Spanish group performed better than the L2 intermediate learners and L2 advanced learners on perfective activities, perfective accomplishments, and imperfective accomplishments. In addition, the L2 advanced learners performed better than the L1 Spanish speakers and L2 intermediate learners on the imperfective activities. As the mean scores below indicate, the L2 advanced learners demonstrated much
68
higher accuracy rates than the L2 intermediate learners on all four conditions. Interestingly, the L1 Spanish group performed much better on sentences with verbs that contained the perfective aspect than on sentences with verbs that contained the imperfective aspect. Lastly, all three groups performed best on the perfective accomplishment verb condition.
Table 4.7 Means (in percentages) and Standard Deviations for Group, Lexical Aspect, and Grammatical Aspect Group
Lexical Aspect
Grammatical Aspect
M
SD
Intermediate
Activity
Perfective
59.29
29.56
Advanced
79.72
39.37
L1 Spanish
81.48
20.84
78.85
23.61
Advanced
91.44
32.12
L1 Spanish
94.44
12.22
62.31
27.32
Advanced
75.22
31.91
L1 Spanish
62.96
28.24
55.00
35.93
Advanced
68.89
31.65
L1 Spanish
71.60
31.29
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Accomplishment
Perfective
Activity
Imperfective
Accomplishment
Imperfective
The 3 × 2 × 2 ANOVA with factors Group (L1 Spanish, L2 Advanced, and L2 Intermediate), Grammatical Aspect (Perfective and Imperfective), and Lexical Aspect (Activity and Accomplishment) revealed a main effect for Grammatical Aspect, F(1, 80)=12.08, p= .001; a main effect for Lexical Aspect, F(1, 80)=13.14, p= .001; a main effect for Group, F(2, 80)=5.07, p= .008; a significant interaction between Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, F(1, 80)=20.77, p < .001; and a significant interaction between Lexical Aspect, Grammatical Aspect, and Group, F(2, 80)=3.20, p= .046.
69
Three analyses of simple main effects were conducted to explore the three-way interaction of Group × Lexical Aspect × Grammatical Aspect. The first analysis of simple main effects explored differences between levels of grammatical aspect (perfective vs. imperfective aspect) for each level of lexical aspect (activities and accomplishments) and for each group (L2 intermediate, L2 advanced, and L1 Spanish). The significant findings are presented in Table 4.8. As Table 4.8 indicates, all three participant groups were more accurate to respond to accomplishment perfectives than accomplishment imperfectives. In addition, the L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate to respond to perfective activity verbs than imperfective activity verbs.
Table 4.8 Summary of main effects for Grammatical Aspect by Group and Lexical Aspect Group
Lexical Aspect
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Intermediate
Accomplishment
PERF > IMP
23.85
8.21
.005
Advanced
Accomplishment
PERF > IMP
22.56
7.64
.004
L1 Spanish
Activity
PERF > IMP
18.52
8.20
.027
Accomplishment
PERF > IMP
22.84
8.05
.006
The second analysis of main effects examined differences between levels of lexical aspect (activities vs. accomplishments) for each level of grammatical aspect (perfective and imperfective aspect) and for each group (L2 intermediate learners, L2 advanced learners, and L1 Spanish speakers). The significant findings are presented in Table 4.9. As Table 4.9 indicates, all three of the participants groups (i.e., both L2 learners and L1 Spanish speakers) were significantly more accurate to interpret accomplishment verbs in comparison with activity verbs when matched with perfective aspect, demonstrating a main effect for perfective aspect and accomplishment verbs.
70
Table 4.9 Summary of main effects for Group, Grammatical Aspect, and Lexical Aspect Group
Grammatical Aspect
Finding
Mean
SE
p
Difference Intermediate
Perfective
ACC > ACT
19.55
4.45
ACT
11.72
4.14
.006
L1 Spanish
Perfective
ACC > ACT
12.96
4.37
.004
The third analysis of main effects examined differences between each group (L2 intermediate, L2 advanced, and L1 Spanish) for each level of grammatical aspect (perfective and imperfective aspect) and each level of lexical aspect (activities and accomplishments). The significant findings are displayed in Table 4.10. First, L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate than the L2 intermediates when interpreting perfective activities, and L2 advanced learners were more accurate than L2 intermediates upon interpreting perfective activities. In addition, L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate than the L2 intermediates to interpret perfective accomplishments.
Table 4.10 Summary of main effects for Group by Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Aspect Grammatical Aspect
Lexical Aspect
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Perfective
Activity
Advanced > Intermediate
20.43
8.37
.017
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
22.19
8.59
.012
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
15.60
6.71
.023
Perfective
Accomplishment
Sentence-Picture Matching Task: Reaction Time Results To begin this section, the reaction time data presented here represents the amount of time (in milliseconds) that it took for the participants to make a decision between the two pictures that they were presented with. The interval between the offset of the sentence and the onset of the
71
pictures was less than 1 millisecond. Then, the pictures remained on the screen for a maximum of 3 seconds. During those 3 seconds, the participants had to determine which picture best matched the sentence that they read at the beginning of the trial. If a participant did not respond within the allotted 3 seconds, then the experimental software (Superlab) would move on to the next item, therefore considering that trial unanswered. The reaction times that are provided below are for correct trials only. As Table 4.11 demonstrates, the L1 Spanish speakers are faster than the L2 intermediate learners and L2 advanced learners for perfective activities and perfective accomplishments. In addition, the L2 advanced learner group had the fastest processing times for the imperfective activities, and the slowest processing times for the imperfective accomplishments.
Table 4.11. Means and Standard Deviations of Reaction Times (in milliseconds) for Group, Grammatical Aspect, and Lexical Aspect Group
Grammatical Aspect
Lexical Aspect
M
SD
Intermediate
Perfective
Activity
2575
552
Advanced
2442
710
L1 Spanish
2146
547
2683
897
Advanced
2445
677
L1 Spanish
2103
549
2582
768
Advanced
2340
646
L1 Spanish
2506
663
2654
625
Advanced
2727
881
L1 Spanish
2621
710
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Perfective
Accomplishment
Imperfective
Activity
Imperfective
Accomplishment
The 3 × 2 × 2 ANOVA with factors Group (L1 Spanish, L2 Advanced, and L2 Intermediate), Grammatical Aspect (Perfective and Imperfective), and Lexical Aspect (Activity
72
and Accomplishment) revealed a main effect for Grammatical Aspect, F(1, 80)= 9.48, p=.003; and a significant interaction between Grammatical Aspect and Group, F(2, 80)= 5.78, p= .005. Additionally, the interaction between Grammatical Aspect and Lexical Aspect approached significance, F(1, 80)= 3.28, p= .074. As it can be seen in Table 4.12 below, longer reading times were revealed for imperfective aspect than perfective aspect. In particular, the L2 advanced group comprehended perfective accomplishments faster than imperfective accomplishments. In addition, the L1 Spanish group interpreted perfective activities faster than imperfective activities. Finally, the L1 Spanish group processed perfective accomplishments faster than imperfective accomplishments.
Table 4.12. Summary of main effects for Group, Lexical Aspect, and Grammatical Aspect Group
Lexical Aspect
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Advanced
Accomplishment
PERF < IMP
281.39
124.00
.026
L1 Spanish
Activity
PERF < IMP
359.88
123.98
.005
Accomplishment
PERF < IMP
517.48
130.71
ACT
386.37
133.36
.005
The main effects that were found for each participant group are shown in Table 4.14 below. First, L1 Spanish speakers were significantly faster to comprehend perfective activities than the L2 intermediate learners. The second finding revealed that the L1 Spanish speakers were significantly faster to comprehend perfective accomplishments than the L2 intermediates. 73
Table 4.14. Summary of main effects for Group by Lexical Aspect and Grammatical Aspect Grammatical Aspect Perfective
Lexical Aspect ACT
Perfective
ACC
Finding
SE
p
Intermediate > L1 Spanish
Mean Difference 428.54
168.30
.013
Intermediate > L1 Spanish
580.15
197.26
.004
The last main effect that was revealed for each participant group and grammatical aspect demonstrates that native Spanish speakers processed the perfective aspect significantly faster than L2 intermediate learners and L2 advanced learners.
Table 4.15. Summary of main effects for Group by Grammatical Aspect Grammatical Aspect
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Perfective
Intermediate > L1 Spanish
504.34
151.80
.001
Advanced > L1 Spanish
319.16
146.56
.032
Summary of the Results from the Sentence-Picture Matching Task A summary of the results from the sentence-picture matching task are presented in the bullet list below:
L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate than the L2 intermediate learners when processing perfective activities and perfective accomplishments
L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate with perfective activities than imperfective activities
All three groups performed the most accurately on perfective accomplishments
L1 Spanish speakers processed perfective aspect significantly faster than imperfective aspect, and processed the perfective aspect faster than the L2 intermediate learners and the L2 advanced learners
74
L1 Spanish speakers processed perfective accomplishments faster than imperfective accomplishments and perfective activities faster than imperfective activities
L2 advanced learners had the fastest processing times for the imperfective activities, and the slowest processing times for the imperfective accomplishments.
Self-Paced Reading Task A brief explanation of the SPR (self-paced reading) task is provided below to remind the reader of the task at hand. The exemplar sentences below demonstrate the types of sentences that were presented to the participants for the SPR task. (22a) El paciente se moría de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. „The patient was dying of pneumonia in the hospital, but recuperated after several days.‟ (22b) *El paciente se murió de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. „The patient died of pneumonia in the hospital, but recuperated after several days.‟
Sentences (22a) and (22b) illustrate an aspectual contrast of the same situation in which (22b) is interpreted as illogical (as marked by the *) and (22a) is interpreted as logical. For this self-paced reading task, the participants read sentences like the ones that are provided above. The sentences were broken up into eight segments, so that the participants were able to read each segment at their own pace while Superlab Pro 4.0 software measured their reading times in milliseconds. After reading the entire sentence, the participants were asked whether or not the sentence was logical, therefore measuring overall comprehension of the sentence.
Participant Inclusion Criteria The study began with an initial sample size of 98 total participants consisting of 30 intermediate L2 learners, 33 advanced L2 learners, and 35 native Spanish speakers. Although there were 98 subjects who participated in this research study, only 93 participants were included in the final analyses. The 93 participants consisted of 30 intermediate L2 learners, 32 advanced L2 learners, and 31 native Spanish speakers.
75
Participants‟ data were excluded from the self-paced reading task if: (a) they used a testtaking strategy in which they chose one answer the majority of the time (more than 80% of the time) or (b) native speakers performed at or below 60%. Based on these criteria, four participants (three L1 Spanish speakers and one advanced L2 learner) were excluded from the final analyses. One L1 Spanish speaker was excluded from the statistical analyses for using a test-taking strategy. The other two L1 Spanish speakers were excluded from the analyses for performing at or below 60%. The participant who was excluded from the L2 advanced learner group provided the same answer for the majority of all experimental items, therefore demonstrating a test-taking strategy in which he/she did not attempt to differentiate between the logical and illogical sentences, but rather chose the same answer throughout the bulk of the experiment.
Item Exclusion Prior to conducting inferential statistical analyses of the data, the data from the native speakers were examined to determine the consistency with which they responded to each item. For example, if an item was inconsistent (i.e., demonstrating less than 60% consistency) among native speakers, then that item was treated as a filler item rather than an experimental item. This exclusion process ensured that there was a consistent consensus of responses among the native speaker group. As a result, two experimental items from each verb type were excluded from the final analysis. Given that this experiment includes three verb types, six sentence pairs were excluded; two achievements, two statives, and two accomplishments. The scores for the six experimental items that were excluded are provided in the table below:
Table 4.16 Mean scores (in percentages) for the excluded items Item
Verb Type
Intermediate
Advanced
L1 Spanish
137
State
43.3
52.9
47.1
43.3
52.9
58.8
50
29.4
50
60
47.1
50
46.7
47.1
50
50
20.6
41.2
140 109
Accomplishment
122 121 141
Achievement
76
After examining these sentences, it became apparent that there was some degree of ambiguity among the sentences that the native speakers responded to inconsistently. As a result, these sentences were not interpreted as they were originally intended. For example, it is possible to interpret sentences (23a) and (23b) as logical depending on the perspective of the reader. In sentences (23a) and (23b), the reader may think that the act of climbing Mount Everest does not necessarily include reaching the summit. In that case, both sentences would be interpreted as logical. (23a) El alpinista subía al monte Everest, pero nunca alcanzó la cima a causa de una avalancha. „The alpinist was climbing Mount Everest, but never reached the summit due to an avalanche.‟ (23b) *El alpinista subió al monte Everest, pero nunca alcanzó la cima a causa de una avalancha. „*The alpinist climbed Mount Everest, but never reached the summit due to an avalanche.‟ Another example of a sentence pair that was not consistently responded to by native speakers is that of (23a) and (23b). Both of these sentences can be interpreted as logical. In sentence (23b), Rosario was still able to move without the help of Julio. So even though she counted on his help initially, she found a way to move without his help. Put another way, the first clause of the sentence does not directly contradict the second clause of the sentence. Therefore, sentences (23a) and (23b) can both be interpreted as logical. (24a) Rosario contaba con la ayuda de Julio para la mudanza, pero la hizo ella sola sin problema. „Rosario was counting on Julio‟s help for the move, but she did it herself without any issue.‟ (24b) *Rosario contó con la ayuda de Julio para la mudanza, pero la hizo ella sola sin problema. „*Rosario counted on Julio‟s help for the move, but she did it herself without any issue.‟ Overall, due to the discrepancies of these items among native speakers, and because these sentences were not consistently interpreted in the same way among native speakers, these items were excluded from the main statistical analyses and treated as filler items. The exclusion of these items resulted in a low number of items per condition (verb type × sentence type). Thus,
77
two separate two way ANOVAs were conducted. The table below shows the number of items per condition before and after the item exclusion.
Table 4.17 Number of items per condition before and after item exclusion Exclusion of items
List 1
List 2
Before item exclusion
8 items per verb type
8 items per verb type
12 items per sentence type
12 items per sentence type
6 items per verb type
6 items per verb type
9 items per sentence type
9 items per sentence type
After item exclusion
Self-Paced Reading Task: Accuracy Results Table 4.18 displays the descriptive statistics for each group for the self-paced reading task. As the table demonstrates, the L2 intermediates performed slightly above chance and the L2 advanced group performed slightly better than the L2 intermediate group. The scores for the L1 Spanish group are notably higher than the two learner groups. In addition, the standard deviation is lowest for the L1 Spanish group, demonstrating that the L1 Spanish accuracy scores do not show as much variation and are closer to the mean than the scores of their L2 counterparts. Table 4.18. Overall Mean Scores (in percentages) and Standard Deviations by Group Group
n
M
SD
Intermediate
30
51.48
11.10
Advanced
32
55.90
13.75
L1 Spanish
31
76.27
7.97
Table 4.19 demonstrates the overall mean scores and standard deviations for all three groups, according to sentence type (i.e., logical vs. illogical sentences). As the table below demonstrates, the L1 Spanish speakers performed much better on the logical sentences than on the illogical sentences. The intermediate L2 learners performed better on the logical sentences
78
than on the illogical sentences. The advanced L2 learners performed the same on the illogical and logical sentences. Table 4.19. Descriptive Statistics for Group and Sentence Type Group
Sentence Type
M
SD
Intermediate
Logical
56.67
16.60
Advanced
55.90
24.03
L1 Spanish
84.95
12.02
46.30
16.27
Advanced
55.90
20.64
L1 Spanish
65.59
15.00
Intermediate
Illogical
The 3 2 ANOVA with the factors of Group (L1 Spanish, L2 Advanced, and L2 Intermediate) and Sentence Type (Logical and Illogical) revealed a main effect for Group, F(2, 90)= 39.13, p Intermediate
28.28
4.69
Advanced
29.04
4.62
Intermediate
19.30
4.49
Advanced
9.69
4.42
.031
Advanced > Intermediate
9.61
4.45
.034
Illogical
79
Table 4.21 demonstrates that L2 intermediate learners and L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate with logical sentences than illogical sentences.
Table 4.21. Summary of simple main effects for Sentence Type by Group Group
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Intermediate
Logical > Illogical
10.37
5.10
.045
L1 Spanish
Logical > Illogical
19.36
5.02
ACC
15.48
5.19
.004
Table 4.24 displays the paired comparisons for Group and Verb Type. The L1 Spanish speakers significantly outperformed the L2 advanced learners and the L2 intermediate learners on stative verbs. The L2 advanced learners significantly outperformed the L2 intermediate learners, and the L1 Spanish speakers significantly outperformed the L2 intermediate learners on accomplishments. The L1 Spanish group performed significantly better than the L2 advanced learners and the L2 intermediate learners on achievements. All of these significant findings are displayed in Table 4.24 below.
81
Table 4.24. Summary of simple main effects for Group by Verb Type Verb Type
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Stative
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
27.66
5.60
Advanced
27.51
5.48
Intermediate
11.36
5.20
.031
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
19.44
5.41
.001
L1 Spanish > Intermediate
27.70
4.71
Advanced
22.55
4.61
L1 Spanish
225.49
59.06
< .001
Region 7 is the first spillover region after the verb (i.e., Verb + 1). Table 4.27 demonstrates that there were significant differences between reading times for logical and illogical sentences at Region 7 among the L2 intermediate learners. For the L2 intermediate learner group, longer reading times (i.e., slower reading times) were revealed on logical sentences than on illogical sentences at Region 7.
Table 4.27. Summary of main effects for Sentence Type by Group for Region 7 Group
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Intermediate
Logical > Illogical
140.16
49.96
.006
Table 4.28 displays that L1 Spanish speakers were significantly faster than the L2 intermediate learners and the L2 advanced learners at Region 7 (i.e., Verb +1) on logical sentences.
85
Table 4.28. Summary of main effects for Group by Sentence Type for Region 7 Sentence Type
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Logical
Intermediate > L1 Spanish
164.19
63.66
.012
Advanced > L1 Spanish
166.49
62.64
.009
Table 4.29 shows that the L1 Spanish group processed Region 7 significantly faster than the L2 advanced learners, regardless of sentence type.
Table 4.29. Summary of the main effects for Group for Region 7 Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Advanced > L1 Spanish
121.53
51.41
.020
Region 8 is the last region of the sentence. It is the second spillover region (Verb + 2). Table 4.30 reveals a significant difference in reading times between logical and illogical sentences for L2 advanced and L2 intermediate learners. Both L2 learner groups are significantly faster to process logical sentences over illogical sentences.
Table 4.30. Summary of main effects for Sentence Type by Group for Region 8 Group
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Intermediate
Illogical > Logical
455.74
128.90
.001
Advanced
Illogical > Logical
300.45
133.90
.027
Table 4.31 shows that the L1 Spanish group is significantly faster to process the last region of the sentence in comparison with the L2 intermediate learners for illogical sentences.
86
Table 4.31. Summary of main effects for Group by Sentence Type for Region 8 Sentence Type
Finding
Mean Difference
SE
p
Illogical
Intermediate > L1 Spanish
464.47
189.63
.016
Summary of the Results from the Self-Paced Reading Task To review the main findings from the self-paced reading task, a summary is provided below:
The native Spanish speakers were more accurate than the L2 advanced and intermediate learners regardless of sentence type and verb type
The L2 intermediate learners and L1 Spanish speakers were more accurate with logical sentences than illogical sentences, and less accurate with accomplishments in comparison to states and achievements.
At Region 6 (Verb), L2 learners had slower reading times than native speakers, regardless of the sentence type
At Region 7 (Verb +1), L2 learners had slower reading times for logical sentences as compared to illogical sentences, and native speakers were significantly faster than the L2 learners to read logical sentences
At Region 8 (Verb +2), L2 learners read illogical sentences faster than logical sentences, and native speakers were faster than the L2 intermediate learners when processing illogical sentences Chapter 5 will provide a more detailed discussion of the results from this chapter.
Moreover, the next chapter will interpret and explain the results from the cloze tasks, the sentence-picture matching task, and the self-paced reading task.
87
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Outline of the Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to interpret and explain the results that were presented in chapter four. In addition, this chapter connects the results of this study to current hypotheses of SLA. This chapter also examines how the current findings converge and diverge with previous research. In this chapter I propose several pedagogical implications that can be taken away from this study. Then, I conclude by discussing the study‟s limitations and some possible avenues for future research.
Discussion of the Findings The discussion of the results is addressed in regards to the original research questions that guided this study:
Research Question 1 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect choice of aspect on two offline cloze tasks in terms of accuracy? Yes, Spanish proficiency affected choice of aspect on the two offline cloze tasks in terms of accuracy. The combined mean scores of both cloze tasks demonstrated that the native Spanish speakers outperformed both L2 learner groups and the L2 advanced learners outperformed the L2 intermediate learners. It was expected that the three participant groups would perform the best on the offline cloze tasks, and that prediction was borne out. Because the L2 learners have received explicit instruction regarding (im)perfective aspectual distinctions, it is expected that they would possess some knowledge of it, albeit on a highly controlled and monitored task such as the cloze tasks of this study. The results here suggest that the L2 learners were able to distinguish between aspectual distinctions, possibly drawing upon metalinguistc knowledge gained via explicit instruction. In addition, these results suggest that on-line tasks are typically more difficult than offline tasks. Knowing that the participants had to keep the sentences in their working memory before providing a response for the on-line comprehension tasks, it is no
88
surprise that the offline cloze tasks were easier and more straightforward for all three groups. Previous research shows that online tasks are comparatively more difficult than offline tasks (Jegerski & VanPatten, 2014), especially for L2 learners. Thus, the results of the current study support previous findings for which participants demonstrate higher accuracy scores on offline tasks as opposed to on-line tasks.
Research Question 2 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect processing of aspect on a sentence-picture matching task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) response times? Yes, Spanish proficiency affected processing of aspect on the sentence-picture matching task in terms of accuracy and response times. In terms of accuracy, the L2 advanced learners performed the best overall on the sentence-picture matching task, the L1 Spanish speakers performed the next best, and the L2 intermediate learners performed the worst. In terms of response times, the L1 Spanish speakers were fastest, the L2 advanced learners were the next fastest, and the L2 intermediate learners were the slowest. The mean response times that were demonstrated by each participant group were expected, demonstrating slower reading times for the less proficient group. However, it was not expected that the native Spanish speakers would be less accurate than the L2 advanced learners on the sentence-picture matching task. The L1 Spanish speakers were less accurate than the L2 advanced learners on the imperfective activities only. One explanation for this result could be due to the past progressive (i.e., estaba nadando) being more natural and native-like than the imperfective (i.e., nadaba) with activity verbs. On the other three conditions (perfective activities, perfective accomplishments, and imperfective accomplishments) the L1 Spanish speakers were slightly more accurate than the L2 advanced learners. As expected, the L2 intermediate learners were the least accurate and the slowest to process all four conditions on the sentence-picture matching task. In accordance with the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996), the current study supports the prediction that accomplishments are applied to the perfective aspect early in development, as it is demonstrated by the performance of all three groups on the perfective accomplishments, which were the most accurate of the four conditions. In addition, the L1
89
Spanish speakers and L2 advanced learners processed perfective activities and accomplishments more accurately than imperfective activities and accomplishments. This additional result further supports the Aspect Hypothesis, which suggests that perfective aspect is acquired before imperfective aspect.
Research Questions 3 and 4 Does verb type (activities and accomplishments) and perfectivity (perfective and imperfective aspect) affect processing of aspect on a sentence-picture matching task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) response times? Yes, verb type and perfectivity affected processing of aspect on the sentence-picture matching task in terms of accuracy rates and response times. Most notably, all three participant groups were the most accurate when responding to perfective accomplishments as opposed to other conditions (i.e., perfective activities, imperfective activities, and imperfective accomplishments). In terms of reaction times, the native Spanish speakers processed perfective aspect significantly faster than imperfective aspect, and processed the perfective aspect faster than the L2 intermediate learners and the L2 advanced learners. Furthermore, the native Spanish speakers processed the perfective accomplishments faster than any of the other conditions (i.e., perfective activities, imperfective activities, and imperfective accomplishments). Together, these findings indicate that the participants of this experiment showed a strong preference for the perfective aspect and the accomplishment verb type. Given that (a) native Spanish speakers performed most accurately on perfective accomplishments and (b) native Spanish speakers processed perfective accomplishments the fastest, this is evidence to suggest that there was a perfective facilitation effect for accomplishment verbs for the current study. In this way, the L1 results of this study are consistent with the findings from Madden and Zwaan (2003), who demonstrated a perfective processing advantage with accomplishment verbs among English monolinguals. Madden and Zwaan (2003) also found that their participants were not sensitive to imperfective aspectual cues. Regarding these findings, Madden and Zwaan (2003) concluded that perfective sentences were more quickly matched to pictures of completed events because it is easier to define the mental representation of an event that is associated with a clear endpoint. Overall, the L1 results of the current study closely support both of the major findings from Madden and Zwaan (2003); that
90
among L1 speakers (a) perfective aspect was processed the fastest and the most accurately, and (b) imperfective aspect was processed more slowly and less accurately. Although the findings from the current study are in agreement with the previous findings from Madden and Zwaan (2003), the findings from the current study do not completely align with Yap et al. (2009). As a reminder, Yap et al. (2009) demonstrated that (a) sentences containing imperfective activities were matched more quickly and more accurately with pictures of on-going events and (b) sentences containing perfective accomplishments were matched more quickly and more accurately with pictures of completed events among L1 Cantonese (which is tenseless but rich in aspectual markings). The researchers suggest that these different aspectual asymmetries (or prototypical pairings) emerge as a result of the inherent associations between: accomplishment verbs (which are telic) and the bounded features of perfective aspect, and activity verbs (which are atelic) and the unbounded features of imperfective aspect. However, if we look at the imperfective activities of the current study, for which we expected a processing advantage (as shown by Yap et al., 2009) native speakers of the current study were slower and less accurate to process imperfective activities. Accordingly, the L1 Spanish speakers of the current study processed imperfective activities in a different way from the L1 Cantonese speakers of Yap et al. (2009). One possible explanation for these differences could be due to the linguistic typology (cross-linguistic variation) of Cantonese, Spanish, and English. On one hand, in Spanish and English, the distinction between perfective and imperfective aspect in past tense is marked by tense morphology (i.e., the Preterit and Imperfect in Spanish, and the simple past and past progressive in English). On the other hand, Cantonese lacks grammatical tense, but is rich in aspectual marking, therefore avoiding issues related to tense-aspect conflation. This crosslinguistic account might help to explain why the L1 Spanish speakers of the current study demonstrated similar processing to the L1 English speakers of Madden and Zwaan (2003) and more dissimilar processing to the L1 Cantonese speakers of Yap et al. (2009).
Research Question 5 Does Spanish proficiency (native Spanish speakers, advanced L2 learners, and intermediate L2 learners) affect processing of aspect on a self-paced reading task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) reading times?
91
Yes, Spanish proficiency did affect processing of aspect on the self-paced reading task in terms of accuracy and reading times. The L1 Spanish speakers were significantly more accurate than the L2 learner groups, and the L2 advanced learners were slightly more accurate than the L2 intermediate learners. In terms of reading times, the L1 Spanish speakers read faster than the L2 learners. In particular, the L1 Spanish speakers processed the verb region (Region 6) significantly faster than the L2 learners. Interestingly, though, the L1 Spanish speakers‟ reading times showed no significant differences for Sentence Type (i.e., logicality).
L1 speaker findings As one would expect, high accuracy rates among the native speakers were anticipated and came as no surprise. However, the native speaker reaction time results were not expected, considering that native speakers typically show online sensitivity when there is a mismatch in grammaticality of subject-verb agreement (VanPatten, Keating, & Leeser, 2012), mood (Cameron, 2011), and noun-adjective agreement (Foote, 2011; Keating, 2009, 2010; Leeser, Brandl, & Weisslgass, 2011). To review, the native speaker results for the self-paced reading task of the present study demonstrated that native speakers were generally accurate with their responses despite a lack of significant differences in reading times for logicality. One explanation for these results could be in part due to the comprehension check that appeared after each sentence. Crucially for this experiment, the comprehension check always appeared immediately after each sentence and always asked the participants to determine if the sentence was logical. Before even beginning the practice items for the SPR task, all of the participants were provided with written instructions in addition to a verbal explanation of the instructions for the experiment. The written and verbal instructions made it clear that the objective of the task was to determine if the sentences that they read on the computer screen were logical or not (i.e., if they made sense or not). Therefore, it is possible that the native speakers‟ reading times were unaffected by illogicality because they had anticipated that some sentences would be illogical, as the task instructions suggested. Thus, if we suppose that the native speakers were very savvy to these particular task demands, it would be reasonable to argue that the illogical sentences did not throw them off or cause a slowdown in reading times at the regions of interest.
92
Another explanation for these results is that perhaps native speakers find grammatical mismatches in subject-verb agreement, mood, and noun-adjective agreement to be more salient than grammatical mismatches in aspectual distinctions. Given that aspectual choices are essentially determined based on the perspective of the speaker, it is possible that the experiment did not flush out these aspectual subtleties as strongly as previous studies did with mismatches of subject-verb agreement (VanPatten, Keating, & Leeser, 2012), mood (Cameron, 2011), and noun-adjective agreement (Foote, 2011; Keating, 2009, 2010; Leeser, Brandl, & Weisslgass, 2011). Taking into account that interpreting logicality is somewhat subjective and dependent on the perspective of the reader; some sentences were interpreted inconsistently among native speakers. In these cases, the native speakers could have thought of a situation in which a sentence that was originally intended to be illogical could somehow be logical. Given that accuracy rates were much lower among the native speakers for illogical sentences, this explanation might also be plausible.
L2 learner findings Because of the unanticipated results from the native speakers, it is difficult to interpret the findings of the L2 learners. However, here are some observations that can be made about the L2 learner results. The first observation is that the L2 learners, as whole, did not successfully interpret the meaning of the experimental sentences. According to the L2 learner accuracy data, the L2 intermediate learners scored a 51% overall on both sentence types (logical and illogical sentences), and the L2 advanced learners scored a 56% overall on both sentence types. The L2 learners‟ low accuracy rates are indicative of the difficulty of this self-paced reading task. Their low accuracy rates also show that they were basically performing at chance. The second observation is that the L2 learners slowed down at the regions of interest, especially at the verb region for both logical and illogical sentences. Given that L2 learners of Spanish (with an L1 of English) typically struggle with aspectual contrasts in addition to Spanish‟s rich morphological system, it is possible that the increased reading times at these regions (the verb and spillover regions) are an indication of a processing difficulty. When comparing the processing times of the L2 learners with the L1 Spanish speakers, the L2 learners slowed down significantly more at the verb region as compared to the L1 Spanish speakers.
93
Moreover, the L1 Spanish speakers continued to read the verb at a similar pace as the conjunction word from the preceding region, demonstrating just how unaffected the native speakers were by the verb. Concerning these differences in processing speeds between the native and non-native speakers of this study, there is evidence to suggest that L2 processing consists of effortful comprehension, which may tax the computational resources of the learner as they engage in millisecond-by-millisecond analysis of a sentence (VanPatten & Williams, 2007).
Research Question 6 Does logicality (logical and illogical sentences) affect processing of aspect on a selfpaced reading task in terms of: (a) accuracy and (b) reading times? Yes, logicality did affect processing of aspect on the self-paced reading task in terms of accuracy and reading times. The native Spanish speakers outperformed both L2 learner groups on both sentence types (logical and illogical), and the L2 advanced learners outperformed the L2 intermediate learners on illogical sentences. The L1 Spanish speaker processed logical sentences significantly more accurately than illogical sentences. In terms of reading times, the L2 learners took significantly longer than the L1 Spanish speakers to process the verb (Region 6) on both logical and illogical sentences. In addition, the L2 learners took significantly longer than the L1 Spanish speakers to process the verb +1 (Region 7) for logical sentences. Finally, the L2 intermediates took significantly longer than the L1 Spanish speakers to process the verb + 2 (Region 8) for illogical sentences. The L2 learners were slower and less accurate than L1 Spanish speakers to process both logical and illogical sentences, strengthening the argument that native processing is distinct from non-native processing. Furthermore, it seems as though the L2 learners had difficulties processing the verb region, as it has been demonstrated by their low accuracy rates and long reading times at the verb region. This observation of the current L2 results converges with Clahsen and Felser (2006) who claim that L2 learners have difficulties processing heavy morphosyntactic information.
Research Question 7 Does verb type (states, activities, and accomplishments) affect processing of aspect on a self-paced reading task in terms of accuracy?
94
Yes, verb type did affect processing of aspect on the self-paced reading task in terms of accuracy, but not in the way that it was expected. It was hypothesized that the L1 Spanish speakers and L2 learners would process accomplishments and achievements more accurately than states as predicted by the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996). However, the L1 Spanish speakers comprehended states and achievements significantly more accurately than accomplishments. In addition, the L1 Spanish speakers comprehended states and achievements significantly more accurately than both learner groups, and the L1 Spanish speakers comprehended accomplishments significantly more accurately than the L2 intermediate learners. The L2 advanced learners processed accomplishments significantly more accurately than the L2 intermediate learners. These particular findings of the current study do not support the Aspect Hypothesis. One explanation for these findings could be that the accomplishment sentences did not highlight the aspectual violation as strongly as the sentences containing achievements and statives. As it is demonstrated below, for the self-paced reading task, the first verb of each experimental sentence (a) was classified according to verb type (stative, accomplishment, or achievement), and (b) controlled for the violation in grammatical aspect for illogical sentences. Achievement: (26) El paciente se moría de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. *El paciente se murió de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. Verb 1
Verb 2
„The patient was dying of pneumonia in the hospital, but recuperated after several days.‟ *„The patient died of pneumonia in the hospital, but recuperated after several days.‟ State: (27) El estudiante no sabía la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase. *El estudiante nunca supo la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase. „The student did not know the answer to the question, but answered it at the end of class.‟ „The student never found out the answer to the question, but answered it at the end of class.‟
95
Accomplishment: (28) El mesero servía el champán en una copa, pero derramó toda la botella sobre la mesa. *El mesero sirvió el champán en una copa, pero derramó toda la botella sobre la mesa. „The waiter was serving the champagne in a glass, but spilled the entire bottle onto the table.‟ *„The waiter served the champagne in a glass, but spilled the entire bottle onto the table.‟ (29) El señor vendía chocolates en la calle, pero nadie compró ni un dulce de su tiendita. *El señor vendió chocolates en la calle, pero nadie compró ni un dulce de su tiendita. „The man was selling chocolates in the street, but no one bought even one sweet from his store.‟ *„The man sold chocolates in the street, but no one bought even one sweet from his store.‟
Upon examining the sentences above, it appears that the aspectual distinctions for sentences (28) and (29) are not as strong when compared to sentences (26) and (27). Moreover, the results for verb type, demonstrating that the L1 Spanish speakers were less accurate on accomplishments than achievements and states, might be explained by the semantic characteristics of these lexical classes and the nature of the materials of this SPR task. First, stative verbs are on one end of the spectrum with characteristics of being [-dynamic], [-telic], and [-punctual], while achievements are on the other end of the spectrum with characteristics of being [+dynamic], [+telic], and [+punctual]. Second, activities and accomplishments are in the middle of the spectrum with activities closer to states and accomplishments closer to achievements. Given that states and achievements are on the outer boundaries of the spectrum in terms of dynamicity, telicity, and punctuality, it is possible that states and achievements demonstrated starker aspectual distinctions for these logical and illogical sentences, making their logicality easier to judge.
Implications of the Findings for L2 Acquisition This section situates the findings of the two on-line tasks within the theoretical frameworks that were presented in chapter 1: (a) Generative Grammar and (b) Lexical Semantics. On the one hand, Lexical Semantics considers the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996). On the other hand, Generative Grammar considers the Failed Functional Features
96
Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997), the Full Transfer-Full Access Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996), and the Shallow Structures Hypothesis (Clahsen & Felser, 2006).
Lexical Semantics The results from the sentence-picture matching task provide evidence to support the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai, 1996). For the sentence-picture matching task, the L2 intermediate and advanced learners were significantly more accurate to comprehend perfective accomplishments than any other condition, therefore supporting the Aspect Hypothesis, which states that learners will initially restrict perfective marking to achievements and accomplishments and later extend imperfective marking to states and activities. Moreover, the L2 advanced learners processed perfective accomplishments and activities more accurately than imperfective activities and accomplishments. This additional result further supports the Aspect Hypothesis, which suggests that perfective aspect is acquired before imperfective aspect. In these ways, the L2 learners of the current study follow the developmental pattern that is proposed by Andersen‟s (1991) order of emergence of tense and aspect in Spanish. Generative Grammar As discussed in chapter 1, the [+/- perfective] features of Aspect are late acquired and quite difficult to master for L2 learners (Montrul and Slabakova, 2003). Moreover, the morphosemantic parametric differences between English and Spanish are not straightforward for English-speaking learners of Spanish. For example, in Spanish, verbs move to the functional category of AspP to check features of [+/- perfective] through overt [+/- perfective] morphology. In English, however, all verbs move to AspP but they are already lexically specified as [+ perfective]. In other words, English does not account the [- perfective] feature. Therefore, L2 learners of Spanish (with an L1 of English) must acquire the strong [- perfective] feature in their L2 Spanish (Montrul and Slabakova, 2003). The L2 results from the current study for which L2 learners performed at chance on the self-paced reading task suggest that the L2 learners have not yet acquired the [-perfective] feature in Spanish, therefore providing some evidence to support the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997). At first glance, the results seem to support the Failed Function Features Hypothesis; however, because the highest proficiency group in this study
97
consisted of advanced L2 learners and not near-native Spanish speakers, it is difficult to say whether these advanced L2 learners will or will not eventually acquire the [+/- perfective] features of Aspect. Evidence of Shallow Structures Hypothesis comes from the findings of the self-paced reading task. The longer reading times at the verb region suggest that L2 learners were in some way attending to the verbal features; however, they were unable to integrate them into their overall interpretation of the sentence. Therefore, the key observation of the results from the SPR task is that the L2 learners of this study were not engaging in deep processing, but rather, in a shallow type of processing. According to Clahsen and Felser (2006), the Shallow Structures Hypothesis proposes that the mental representations of adult L2 learners contain less morpho-syntactic detail than L1 speakers during real-time processing. Clahsen and Felser go further to claim that native speaker processing utilizes a morpho-syntactic reflex, which mediates the integration of lexical and contextual information. In contrast to L1 processing, L2 processing „over-relies‟ on lexical information. Interestingly, the L2 learners of this study consistently slowed down at the verb region, demonstrating significantly longer reading times than the L1 Spanish speakers at the verb region and the verb +1 region on logical sentences, and at the verb region for illogical sentences. The longer reading times by the L2 leaners at the verb and verb +1 regions are an indication of processing difficulties and the effort that is required when strong verbal features (i.e., [+/agreement], [+/- tense], [+/- perfective], [+/- telic]) need to be checked. Overall then, this selfpaced reading experiment supports the view that more effort is needed when more features need to be checked during online processing. Likewise, if a structure does not contain many features, then it will be less difficult to process and require less time to process. The L2 accuracy data also support this view, given that the sentences that contain less morpho-syntactic information were more accurate among L2 learners. These sentences are considered below. As we take a closer look at sentences (30) and (31), notice that sentence (30) contains heavier morpho-syntactic information than sentence (31). Morpho-syntactic information is a key component of the Shallow Structures Hypothesis, which claims that L2 learners more easily process non-morpho-syntactic information (i.e., lexical information) over morpho-syntactic information. The morpho-syntactic chunk of language that would be expected to cause some
98
difficulties for L2 learners is the phrase „se la contó su amiga‟ („her friend told her‟). First off, this phrase is worded in the non-canonical word order of object-verb-subject (OVS), whereas native English speakers overwhelmingly prefer the canonical word order of subject-verb-object (SVO), given that English does not realize any other word order except SVO (Bates & MacWhinney, 1989). Second, this phrase also includes an indirect object pronoun, a direct object pronoun, and of course a verb that is not necessarily very frequent in the L2 classroom. Whereas sentence (30) contains rich morpho-syntactic information that may throw off the L2 learners, sentence (31) contains a lot of lexical items that may boost L2 processing. For example, the following lexical items (from sentence 31) are constantly used in the L2 classroom setting, therefore we can expect a high level of familiarity with these particular lexical items among the L2 learners: „respuesta‟ („answer‟), „pregunta‟ („question‟), „final‟ („end‟), „estudiante‟ („student‟), „clase‟ („class‟), and „contestar‟ (to answer‟). (30) La novia no sabía la verdad sobre su novio, pero se la contó su amiga en la fiesta. *La novia nunca supo la verdad sobre su novio, pero se la contó su amiga en la fiesta. „The girlfriend did not know the truth about her boyfriend, but her friend told her at the party.‟ *„The girlfriend never found out the truth about her boyfriend, but her friend told her at the party.‟ (31) El estudiante no sabía la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase. *El estudiante nunca supo la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase. „The student did not know the answer to the question, but answered it at the end of class.‟ „The student never found out the answer to the question, but answered it at the end of class.‟ Both sentences (30) and (31) utilize the verb „saber‟ („to know‟), which changes meaning depending on the use of the perfective or imperfective aspect. Although the use of „saber‟ is very similar in both sentences, the L2 learners performed significantly better on sentence (31), and the L1 Spanish speakers performed significantly better on sentence (30). In light of these results, the Shallow Structures Hypothesis is supported, given that the L2 learners more accurately processed the heavy lexical information (in sentence 31), and the L1 speakers more accurately processed the heavy morpho-syntactic information (in sentence 30).
99
Continuing with this discussion, the findings from the self-paced reading task support the perspective that second language learners have limited cognitive resources that considerably affect the ways in which they comprehend their second language (VanPatten, 1990). It seems that the task demands of this particular self-paced reading task taxed the L2 learners‟ working memory resources, therefore constraining their ability to perform well on the task. As it is known, for this self-paced reading task, the text was segmented into phrases and then presented in a phrase-by-phrase technique. Of course, going back to re-read previous segments or reading the entire sentence all at once is not possible for the SPR task. As a result, some participants commented on the post experiment free response questionnaire that the self-paced reading experiment made them realize how often they need to go back and re-read in their L2. Many of the participants stated that they forgot parts of the sentence by the time they reached the comprehension question. One participant expressed that he would have liked to go back and reread some of the segments. Overall, the picture that has emerged from this self-paced reading experiment suggests that there are clear differences between L1 and L2 processing. Given that the L2 learners of Spanish (with an L1 of English) typically struggle with Spanish‟s rich morphological system, it is plausible that the increased reading times among the L2 learners of this experiment at the critical regions (especially at the second verb region) are an indication of a processing difficulty. This is demonstrated by the results when L2 learners took longer to process the regions of interest (the last three regions of each sentence). In addition, after the L2 learners finished reading each sentence, they were unsuccessful in their ability to determine whether or not the sentence was logical. As it has been demonstrated by previous research that has examined L2 processing of inflectional morphology, slow processing speed and effortful processing are characteristic of L2 morphosyntactic processing (Clahsen & Felser, 2006). In accordance with Clahsen and Felser (2006), the L2 learners of the current study exhibited processing deficits that were significantly distinct from the native speaker group of the current study. More specifically, the L2 learners of this research study demonstrated structurally shallower syntactic parsing as they processed morphologically complex words and phrases. This distinction between the L2 learner groups and the native speaker group has highlighted the division that exists between native processing and non-native processing.
100
To conclude this discussion regarding the L2 learner results for the SPR task, several reasonable explanations have been put forth to determine why the L2 learners (a) slowed down at the critical regions, and (b) performed at around chance on the self-paced reading task. Some of these explanations include: (a) issues of working memory, (b) late acquisition of Aspect, and (c) superficial and shallow processing of morpho-syntactic information. In general, for the selfpaced reading task (i.e., during real-time sentence comprehension), it can be concluded that the L2 learners did not detect violations of aspect, as it was demonstrated by their accuracy rates, which showed that the L2 intermediate and L2 advanced learners were essentially performing at chance.
Implications for L2 Instruction Research on emergence and developmental sequences has shown that it takes time for new structures to emerge in the learners‟ interlanguage systems. Furthermore, it takes a long time for L2 learners to master structures such as the perfective and imperfective contrast in Spanish. Knowing that L2 aspect is late acquired, especially for native speakers of English learning Spanish, it is particularly important that teachers are equipped to meet learners where they are in the developmental process. Therefore, teachers should be educated and informed on the processes of acquisition and emergence in order to better assist their students in the classroom. Based on the results from this study, we can expect that L2 performance on a highly monitored cloze task does not equate to acquisition or translate into what the learners can do on any sort of timed on-line task, at least in terms of comprehension. Therefore, it is recommended that instructors start with what the leaners can do, beginning with prototypical pairings and then moving to non-prototypical pairings, but limiting the types of pairings so that they are presented one at a time, allowing the learner time to process and practice with one type of pairing before moving on to the next. Another significant pedagogical implication that has been raised from this research study is the importance of providing L2 learners with a rich context in which perfective and imperfective aspect occurs. As it was demonstrated in the current study, all three participant groups performed best on the offline story-in-context of „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟. In addition, all thee participant groups performed better on this story-in-context cloze task than on the isolated sentence cloze task. Given that the participants were most accurate on the story-in-
101
context cloze task; this begs the question of how beneficial sentence-level examples truly are for L2 acquisition of aspect. It can be argued that oftentimes an example at the sentence-level fails to provide enough of a context for aspect. In other words, in order to highlight why a certain aspectual choice was used in the input, a rich context is needed. This often takes the form of a narrative or a conversation. Although activities with rich contexts beyond the sentence-level are beneficial, there are of course some situations in which sentence-level activities can be useful in the L2 classroom, particularly if those activities push the L2 learner to make connections between meaning and form and overcome negative processing strategies. Consequently, the self-paced reading task could be adapted into classroom activities to encourage learners to focus on the meaning of each sentence. Ideally, the teacher should model one of the sentences as an example before the students are expected to interpret the sentences on their own. Although metalinguistic knowledge is not the same thing as having implicit knowledge of [+/- perfective] features of Aspect or being able to use aspectual distinctions in more spontaneous communicative tasks, these kinds of activities may sensitize learners to these aspectual contrasts for a time when they encounter aspect in subsequent exposures to input. The sentence-picture matching task could also be adapted into classroom activities. As it is well known, a major goal for language teachers is to make the L2 input comprehensible for students by using the target language as much as possible. In order to use the L2 during the entirety of the lesson, translations and grammar explanations should be avoided in the L1. At this point, visual materials (i.e., pictures) can help support teachers as they may otherwise struggle to build a mental representation for the L2 learners without drawing on the L1. Pictures allow teachers to communicate concepts to the learners, therefore making the learning more concrete. In addition, visual materials can serve as mental scaffolds for learners as they acquire complex grammatical forms such as aspect. Therefore by matching the sentence to the picture, L2 learners can make connections between the target language and the universal language of imagery. Moreover, I would expect that the learners would start to gain more confidence in their understanding of L2 aspect as they become more exposed to the various combinations of lexical and grammatical aspect with the support of the mental images that the pictures provide.
102
Limitations and Directions for Future Research A limitation of this research study is that there was a lack of an independent measure for proficiency among the two learner groups (L2 advanced and L2 intermediates). Instead, the grouping of the L2 learners was determined according to course level. In an effort to determine whether there is truly a difference between the L2 intermediate learners and the L2 advanced learners, a paired samples t-test was conducted on the L2 learners‟ language history questionnaire self-ratings of their own proficiency. After examining the L2 learners‟ self-ratings on their proficiency in speaking, understanding spoken language, and reading, the L2 advanced learners and the L2 intermediate learners showed no significant differences between how they rated themselves on these three areas of proficiency. Although the mean scores of the self-ratings were higher for the L2 advanced learners than the L2 intermediate learners, the scores between the two learner groups did not reveal a significant difference. Therefore, the results of this study can only speak to L2 learners and not L2 advanced learners and L2 intermediate learners. One limitation of this study is that some of the sentences from the self-paced reading were excluded. As it was discussed at the beginning of chapter four, there were six experimental sentence pairs that were eliminated from the final analyses of the first experiment because of inconsistent answers from the native speaker participant group. By excluding two sentence pairs per verb type, the final statistical analyses included six sentence pairs per verb type (instead of eight sentence pairs per verb type). Another limitation is that the SPR task did not highlight the ways in which aspectual contrasts are often used in natural story telling at the discourse level. Instead, „Goldilocks and the Three Bears‟ provided a rich story-in-context for the readers to follow. The high mean scores on the cloze story-in-context serve as evidence to support the effectiveness of this type of discourse level task. Both the L2 learners and the L1 Spanish speakers performed the best on the story-in context cloze task in comparison with the other three tasks (i.e., the isolated sentence cloze task, the sentence-picture matching task, and the self-paced reading task). One way to remedy this limitation would be to implement a story-in-context (such as „Goldilocks and the three Bears’) as a self-paced reading study. By doing this, the researcher could provide the rich context that is necessary for the comprehension of aspect while still being able to collect the accuracy and reaction time data from a self-paced reading study. The story would include both grammatical and ungrammatical instances of perfective and imperfective
103
aspect in order to examine how native and non-native speakers process these matches and mismatches of grammatical aspect. Another limitation is that this study did not include a near-native group of participants. Future research can include L2 learners of even higher levels than the L2 advanced learners of the current study. It is important to include near-native speakers for a study such as this one, given the difficulty of the self-paced reading task. In addition, since Aspect is late acquired, an additional group of near-native speakers would provide more insight into how and when L2 acquisition of aspect occurs. Furthermore, a near-native speaker group would better contribute to the debate between the two major generative theories; the Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins & Chan, 1997) and the Full Access Full Transfer Hypothesis (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994; 1996). Another potential avenue for future research would be to investigate the role of individual differences such as working memory. In order to better understand the relationship between language processing and working memory capacity, a working memory task could be beneficial for future research in this area. Given that input processing requires a certain level of working memory, the processing capacity of the L2 learners may affect the rate at which they process the input. For example, when L2 learners attend to meaning and form (especially when processing the aspectual contrasts in Spanish), this type of cognitive demand often results in a slow-down in processing speed. Oftentimes, L2 learners quickly deplete their mental resources as they try to focus on both meaning and form (VanPatten, 1990, 1996). Therefore, L2 learners with high working memory capacity might be able to attend to more of the input all at once without depleting their cognitive resources. In contrast, L2 learners with low working memory capacity might benefit more from a different variety of input that does not require them to attend to so many details all at once. Overall, these individual differences can provide insight into how different types of input can be more or less effective for learners with different working memory capacities. Another area that needs further research is the role of frequency (Bybee & Hopper, 2001) in L2 acquisition of Spanish aspectual contrasts. In other words, how frequently do certain lexical and grammatical combinations of aspect appear in L2 learner contexts and native speaker contexts? A corpus-based approach could be used to answer this question, thereby analyzing the use of tense-aspect morphology in four different contexts: (1) Spanish textbooks, (2) spoken
104
discourse among teachers and students in Spanish classrooms, (3) written native speaker discourse from blogs and other informal venues, and (4) natural spoken discourse among native speakers. By creating such a database, researchers could better understand (a) how L2 acquisition of aspect takes place in a classroom setting, and (b) how native speakers use aspect in a more natural setting. In addition, this type of corpora would provide insight into ways of improving curriculum design. Finally, another area of future research pertaining to this dissertation that would be fruitful is that of first language acquisition among children. To date, there are no studies that examine L1 Spanish comprehension of aspect among children using on-line methodologies. In order to explore L1 Spanish processing among children, the sentence-picture matching task of the current study could be implemented. Instead of reading each sentence on the computer screen, the children would listen to the sentence and then the two pictures would appear next to each other on the computer screen. The children would then decide between the two pictures by touching the picture on the screen. Such an experiment could provide a window into our understanding of L1 child acquisition of aspect and how it related to L2 adult acquisition of aspect. Conclusions The purpose of this dissertation was to determine whether intermediate and advanced learners of Spanish as a second language are aware of the semantic implications of perfective and imperfective aspect. Keeping in mind the limitations, the findings of this study confirm that (a) the L2 learners have some knowledge of the (im)perfective aspect as demonstrated by the cloze task results, (b) the L2 learners were most accurate on perfective accomplishments on the sentence-picture matching task, providing evidence in support of a developmental sequence in the acquisition process of (im)perfective aspect (Andersen & Shirai, 1994), and (c) the L2 learners performed at chance on the self-paced reading experiment, indicating that they failed to acquire the [- perfective] feature in Spanish, and (d) the L2 learners demonstrated shallow sentence processing of morphosyntactic structures (Clahsen & Felser, 2006) on the self-paced reading task. In conclusion, it is hoped that this study will serve as a starting point to further research on L1 and L2 acquisition of aspect.
105
APPENDIX A LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPANISH)
Participante # __________
Fecha ___________
Este cuestionario está diseñado para tener un mejor entendimiento sobre tu experiencia con las lenguas. Te pedimos que respondas a las preguntas con la verdad y con respuestas completas en la medida de lo posible.
Preguntas Generales sobre tu origen: 1. Sexo Femenino Masculino 2. Edad: _______ años 3. ¿Tienes algún tipo de discapacidad visual o problemas auditivos (corregido o no corregidos)? No Sí 4. País de origen Guatemala Otro ______________ Si elegiste otro, ¿a qué edad viniste a Guatemala?
Lengua Materna: 5. ¿Cuál es tu lengua materna/nativa? Español Otra ______________ 6. ¿Cuál es la lengua que se habla en tu casa? Español Otra ______________
106
Educación: 7. ¿Has aprendido una segunda lengua (español, inglés, quiché)?
Sí
No
¿Cuál es la segunda lengua que aprendiste? _______________________ Indica en dónde has estudiado la segunda lengua. ________________________ ¿Por cuánto tiempo estudiaste esa lengua? ___________________________ La escuela primaria: __________ año(s) La escuela secundaria: _____________ año(s) La universidad: ______________ semestre(s)
Evalúa tus habilidades del español: 8. Evalúa tus habilidades de lectura en español. (1= no competente y 10= muy competente) no competente 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
muy competente 9 10
9. Evalúa tus habilidades de escritura en español. (1= no competente y 10= muy competente) no competente 1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
muy competente 9 10
10. Evalúa tus habilidades de hablar en español. (1= no competente y 10= muy competente) no fluido 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
muy fluido 9 10
11. Evalúa tus habilidades de comprender en español. (1= no competente y 10= muy competente) incapaz de comprender 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
¡Gracias por participar!
107
perfectamente capaz de comprender 8 9 10
APPENDIX B LANGUAGE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH) The Language History Questionnaire that was completed by the L2 Learners of Spanish was taken from the Northwestern Bilingualism and Psycholinguistics Research Laboratory: Marian, Blumfeld, & Kaushanskaya (2007). The Language Experience Proficiency Questionniare (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and mutlilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50 (4), 940967. A copy of the LEAP Questionnaire can be found at the following webpage: http://www.bilingualism.northwestern.edu/leapq/
Part 2 of Language History Questionnaire for L2 Learners
Research Participant ID # ____________ Which Spanish class(es) are you currently enrolled in at Florida State? ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ Is there anything else that we should know about your language abilities? Other languages you may speak, etc. Please explain: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
108
APPENDIX C SELF-PACED READING TASK MATERIALS STATES: (1) La fiesta era a las 10 de la noche, pero empezó a la 1 de la madrugada. *La fiesta fue a las 10 de la noche, pero empezó a la 1 de la madrugada. (2) El concierto duraba dos horas y media, pero terminó en menos de dos horas. *El concierto duró dos horas y media, pero terminó en menos de dos horas. (3) El proyecto le costaba demasiado al empresario, así que no pagó ese precio tan alto. *El proyecto le costó demasiado al impresario, así que no pagó ese precio tan alto. (4) La novia no sabía la verdad sobre su novio, pero se la contó su amiga en la fiesta. *La novia nunca supo la verdad sobre su novio, pero se la contó su amiga en la fiesta. (5) La película era a las 6 de la tarde, pero empezó a las 7 por alguna razón inexpicable. *La película fue a las 6 de la tarde, pero empezó a las 7 por alguna razón inexplicable. (6) Rosario contaba con la ayuda de Julio para la mudanza, pero la hizo ella sola sin problema. *Rosario contó con la ayuda de Julio para la mudanza, pero la hizo ella sola sin problema. (7) María tenía una carta de su madre, pero se la perdió el servicio postal en el correo. *María tuvo una carta de su madre, pero se la perdió el servicio postal en el correo. (8) El estudiante no sabía la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase. *El estudiante nunca supo la respuesta de la pregunta, pero la contestó al final de la clase.
ACHIEVEMENTS: (1) El equipo perdía contra los rivales, pero ganó en los últimos minutos del partido. *El equipo perdió contra los rivales, pero ganó en los últimos minutos del partido. (2) La chica cruzaba la calle con su amigo, pero nunca llegó al otro lado desafortunadamente. *La chica cruzó la calle con su amigo, pero nunca llegó al otro lado desafortunadamente. (3) El anciano se moría de cáncer en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de la quimioterapia. *El anciano se murió de cáncer en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de la quimioterapia. (4) El profesor resolvía una ecuación matemática, pero no terminó el último paso del problema. *El profesor resolvió una ecuación matemática, pero no terminó el último paso del problema. (5) El viajero volvía a su casa después del crucero, pero nunca llegó a causa del huracán. *El viajero volvió a su casa después del crucero, pero nunca llegó a causa del huracán.
109
(6) El paciente se moría de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. *El paciente se murió de neumonía en el hospital, pero se recuperó después de varios días. (7) El alpinista subía al monte Everest, pero nunca alcanzó la cima a causa de una avalancha. *El alpinista subió al monte Everest, pero nunca alcanzó la cima a causa de una avalancha. (8) *El estudiante salía del salón de clase, pero no llegó a su destino a causa de la lluvia. *El estudiante salió del salón de clase, pero no llegó a su destino a causa de la lluvia.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: (1) El pájaro se caía de la rama del árbol, pero se quedó allí de milagro. *El pájaro se cayó de la rama del árbol, pero se quedó allí de milagro. (2) El turista llevaba sus maletas al aeropuerto, pero se olvidó todo su equipaje en casa. *El turista llevó sus maletas al aeropuerto, pero se olvidó todo su equipaje en casa. (3) La amiga traía unos postres a la fiesta, pero se dejó toda la comida en su coche. *La amiga trajo unos postres a la fiesta, pero se dejó toda la comida en su coche. (4) El mesero servía el champán en una copa, pero derramó toda la botella sobre la mesa. *El mesero sirvió el champán en una copa, pero derramó toda la botella sobre la mesa. (5) El señor vendía chocolates en la calle, pero nadie compró ni un dulce de su tiendita. *El señor vendió chocolates en la calle, pero nadie compró ni un dulce de su tiendita. (6) La empresa construía una casa para la familia Ruiz, pero nunca terminó la construcción. *La empresa construyó una casa para la familia Ruiz, pero nunca terminó la construcción. (7) La familia iba a la playa de vacaciones, pero se quedó en casa a causa de la tormenta. *La familia fue a la playa de vacaciones, pero se quedó en casa a causa de la tormenta. (8) Amanda tomaba una lata de Coca-Cola y se le cayó todo el refresco sobre la mesa. *Amanda tomó una lata de Coca-Cola y se le cayó todo el refresco sobre la mesa.
Excluded sentences: States: Sentences (6) and (7) Achievements: Sentences (7) and (8) Accomplishments: Sentences (2) and (3)
110
APPENDIX D SENTENCE-PICTURE MATCHING TASK MATERIALS
ACTIVITIES: El hombre nadó/nadaba en la piscina. La chica escuchó/escuchaba música. La mujer bailó/bailaba en el estudio. El chico montó/montaba a caballo. La chica miró/miraba la televisión. El chico jugó/jugaba al tenis. El chico patinó/patinaba sobre hielo. El chico jugó/jugaba con una cometa. La chica habló/hablaba en la radio. La chica habló/hablaba por teléfono. El hombre tocó/tocaba el piano. El hombre pescó/pescaba en el río. El chico hizo/hacía senderismo.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: El hombre construyó/construía una casa. El chico pintó/pintaba la puerta. El hombre plantó/plantaba un árbol. La mujer hizo/hacía un arreglo de flores. La mujer tejió/tejía un suéter. El hombre dibujó/dibujaba una flor. El chico comió/comía una manzana. La mujer envolvió/envolvía un regalo. El hombre cruzó/cruzaba la calle. La mujer abrió/abría las cortinas. La mujer cortó/cortaba la sandía.
111
El hombre nadó/nadaba en la piscina.
La chica escuchó/escuchaba música.
La mujer bailó/bailaba en el estudio.
El chico montó/montaba en caballo.
112
La chica miró/miraba la televisión.
El chico jugó/jugaba al tenis.
El chico patinó/patinaba sobre hielo.
El chico jugó/jugaba con una cometa.
La chica habló/hablaba por teléfono.
113
El hombre tocó/tocaba el piano.
El hombre pescó/pescaba en el río.
El chico hizo/hacía el senderismo.
114
El hombre construyó/construía una casa.
El chico pintó/pintaba la puerta.
El hombre plantó/plantaba un árbol.
La mujer hizo/hacía un arreglo de flores.
115
La mujer tejió/tejía un suéter.
El hombre dibujó/dibujaba una flor.
El chico comió/comía una manzana.
La mujer envolvió/envolvía un regalo.
116
El hombre cruzó/cruzaba la calle.
El profesor borró/borraba la pizarra.
La mujer abrió/abría las cortinas.
La mujer cortó/cortaba la sandía.
117
APPENDIX E FREE RESPONSE QUESTION MATERIALS
Questions from Experiments 1 and 2 What did you notice about Experiment 1? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ What did you notice about Experiment 2? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
118
APPENDIX F CLOZE TASK MATERIALS Please fill in the blank with appropriate form of the verb. Ricitos de Oro y los Tres Ositos: _________ (Había, hubo) una vez tres osos que _________ (vivían, vivieron) en el bosque: papá oso, mamá osa y el pequeño osito. Un día mamá osa _________ (hacía, hizo) una sopa de arroz con pollo y _________ (ponía, puso) tres platos en la mesa. Cuando ya _________ (era, fue) mediodía, los osos se _________ (sentaban, sentaron) para comer porque _________ (tenían, tuvieron) mucha hambre. Papá oso _________ (probaba, probó) la sopa primero y _________ (decía, dijo)- ¡Ay! ¡La sopa está muy caliente! – Entonces, los tres osos _________ (decidían, decidieron) dar un paseo mientras se _________ (enfriaba, enfrió) la sopa. _________ (Era, Fue) un día bonitos del verano y _________ (hacía, hizo) sol. Los osos _________ (caminaban, caminaron) por el bosque cuando una niña perdida _________ (llegaba, llegó) a la casa donde _________ (vivían/vivieron) los tres osos. Se _________ (acercaba/acercó) a la casa y _________ (miraba/miró) por la ventana pero no _________ (había/hubo) nadie en el interior. Entonces _________ (abría, abrió) la puerta y _________ (entraba/entró) en la casa. Ricitos se _________ (alegraba, alegró) cuando _________ (veía, vio) los tres platos de sopa. Ricitos _________ (comía, comió) toda la sopa del plato pequeño porque _________ (estaba, estuvo) perfecta – ni demasiado caliente ni demasiado fría. Después de comer, Ricitos de Oro _________ (querían, quiso) dormir un poco. _________ (Había, Hubo) tres camas: una grande, una mediana, y otra pequeña. Cuando se _________ (acostaba/acostó) en la cama pequeña,_________ (era, fue) tan cómoda que se _________ (dormía, durmió) en seguida. Poco después, los osos _________ (regresaban/regresaron) a su casa. Papá oso _________ (decía/dijo): - ¡Alguien ha probado mi sopa! Mamá osa _________ (decía/dijo): - ¡Alguien se ha probado mi sopa también! El osito _________ (decía/dijo): - ¡Alguien ha comido toda mi sopa! Los tres osos, tristes y hambrientos, _________ (decidían/decidieron) irse a la cama. Papá oso _________ (decía/dijo) - ¡Alguien ha dormido en mi cama! Mamá osa _________ (decía/dijo) ¡Alguien ha dormido en mi cama también! El osito gritó: -¡Alguien está durmiendo en mi cama! Ricitos de Oro se _________ (despertaba/despertó). Al ver a los osos _________ (saltaba/saltó) de la cama y _________ (salían/salió) corriendo sin parar.
119
Please fill in the blank with appropriate form of the verb.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
Después de correr 15 kilómetros, yo ________ (tuve/tenía) mucha hambre. Carla ________ (vino/venía) a recoger a su hermano de la escuela pero se perdió en el camino. El turista ________ (tomó/tomaba) un café mientras leía el periódico. Después de la cirugía, el hombre no ________ (pudo/podía) caminar. Después de una explicación, el estudiante ________ (entendió/entendía) la respuesta. La película ________ (comenzó/comenzaba) a las 8 de la noche. Antes de la entrevista me ________ (sentí/sentía) muy nervioso. La amiga ________ (llevó/llevaba) un plato de comida a la fiesta. El estudiante ________ (estudió/estudiaba) en el salón de la clase cuando entró su profesor. Sofía ________ (durmió/dormía) cuando soñó el teléfono. El hombre ________ (corrió/corría) por la carretera cuando se cayó. Hubo un accidente de coche porque el conductor ________ (hablaba/habló) en su celular mientras manejaba. ________ (Fue/Era) muy tarde cuando regresamos a casa anoche. El niño ________ (leyó/leía) un cuento infantil. El hombre ________ (corrió/corría) 5 kilómetros en 20 minutos. Jorge ________ (conoció/conocía) a su esposa por primera vez en una fiesta. El escritor ________ (escribió/escribía) una novela de ficción mientras que estaba de vacaciones. Durante la escuela secundaria, siempre ________ (asistí/asistía) a todas mis clases. La madre ________ (tejió/tejía) una bufanda mientras miraba la televisión. La reunión no ________ (terminó/terminaba) hasta las 10 de la mañana. El hombre ________ (construyó/construía) una casa para su familia. Después de hablar con su mejor amiga, Claudia ________ (supo/sabía) la verdad sobre su novio. Teresa ________ (logró/lograba) su sueño de ser bailarina. El chico ________ (corrió/corría) la carrera, pero no la terminó. María ________ (llegó/llegaba) 10 minutos tarde a clase. La familia _________ (fue/iba) al parque para el festival, pero nunca llegó a causa de la lluvia. El célebre _________ (salió/salía) del auditorio, pero se encontró con varios aficionados y no pudo salir inmediatamente.
Excluded sentences: Sentences: 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25
120
APPENDIX G LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS 3/19/2015 To Prospective Participants: I am a graduate student in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics at Florida State University. I am conducting research for my dissertation, under the supervision of Dr. Michael Leeser. You are invited to voluntarily participate in my research. My study entitled “Sentence Processing in Spanish”, examines how Spanish is comprehended and processed. Participants in my study will be asked to complete three language comprehension tasks. The language tasks will instruct you to read sentences from a computer and answer questions regarding those sentences. The computer will record the data and your confidentiality will be protected. After completing the third language task, you will be asked to fill out a language history questionnaire, answering questions about your experience with the Spanish language. The entire session will last approximately 50 minutes. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may stop participating at any time. The only foreseeable risk is that you may feel challenged with the task of reading sentences in your second language. You have the right to terminate the session at any time without a penalty. The data I collect will be analyzed by me (Elena Belkin) and my supervisor (Dr. Michael Leeser). Your identity as a participant will remain confidential, and your name will never be publically associated with the data you provide in oral or written presentations of my study. Participants will be compensated for their time with $10. If you wish to participate in this study, please contact me by phone or email. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. In case of a problem that you feel cannot be addressed by me, you may also contact the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, at (850) 644-8633. Thank you for your time.
121
APPENDIX H INFORMED CONSENT FORM (ENGLISH) The study “Sentence Processing in Spanish” is part of a research project that is intended to provide information about the way people learn and process Spanish. If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to perform three language tasks in one session. You will read a series of sentences in Spanish and answer questions about the sentences on a computer. The computer will record the data, and your confidentiality will be protected. Finally, you will be given a questionnaire asking about your past experience learning Spanish. You may decline to answer specific questions. The entire session will last approximately 50 minutes. Your participation is totally voluntary, and you may stop participation at anytime. There is no expected risk during the session. The only foreseeable risk is that you might feel challenged with the task of reading sentences in a foreign language. However, you have the right to terminate the session at any time without any penalty. Your performance and any information obtained will remain confidential, to the extent allowed by law. Your name will be replaced with a number for the purpose of coding and analysis of data. Only the primary researchers will have access to the codes and data, and all data will be stored electronically on a flash drive, which will be kept in a locked file drawer in Diffenbaugh 356 when not being analyzed. In accordance with standard procedure, all data will be destroyed by February 1, 2020. You are encouraged to ask any questions that you might have about this study before, during and after your participation in the study. However, answers that could influence the results of the experiment will be deferred to the end of the experiment. You will also receive a debriefing form upon completion of the study, fully explaining the goals of the research. There are benefits for participating in the research project. First, you may increase your awareness of your second language abilities. Also you will be providing second language acquisition researchers with valuable information about how individuals process a foreign language. This knowledge will assist researchers to improve second language learning methods. If you have any questions about this research or your rights as a participant in this study or if you feel you have been placed at risk please contact Elena Belkin. You can also contact the Chair of Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633 or at
[email protected] I understand the above information and voluntarily consent to participate in this study of my own free will. I am 18 years of age or older and a student and/or employee at Florida State University.
122
I understand that I am free to discontinue participation at any time without explanation. I understand that this form will not be used in conjunction with the results of the study so that my identity will be protected to the extent allowed by the law. I understand that I will receive a signed copy of this consent form.
___________________________
______________
Participant Signature
Date
123
APPENDIX I INFORMED CONSENT FORM (SPANISH) Formulario de Consentimiento Este proyecto mide la comprensión del español y tiene el objetivo de investigar cómo los hablantes nativos y no nativos del español procesan esta lengua. En particular, el proyecto examina la habilidad de leer en una primera lengua (o lengua materna) en comparación con una segunda lengua. Esta información ayudará a los investigadores a mejorar los métodos de aprendizaje de las segundas lenguas. Si usted decide que quiere participar, tendrá que completar tres tareas. Dos tareas están en la computadora y una tarea es de lápiz y papel. En la computadora, usted leerá varias frases en español. Después, contestará las preguntas sobre las frases. Luego, contestará las preguntas de lápiz y papel. Por último, contestará un cuestionario sobre su experiencia con las lenguas. La duración total es aproximadamente 50 minutos. Su participación es totalmente voluntaria. Además, se puede parar en cualquier momento. No hay ningún riesgo que se encuentra durante su participación. Su trabajo y cualquier información obtenido por la investigación se quedará confidencial. Se reemplazará su nombre con un número para luego analizar los datos. Solamente los investigadores principales (Elena Belkin y Dr. Leeser) tendrán acceso a los datos. Los investigadores guardarán los datos en su oficina de la Universidad. Le agradecemos mucho su participación en el día de hoy, la que ayudaría a los investigadores a mejorar los métodos de aprendizaje de las segundas lenguas. Le pedimos que no comente la naturaleza del estudio con otros posibles participantes. Esto podría afectar la validez de nuestras conclusiones. Si Usted tiene alguna pregunta, póngase en contacto con Elena Belkin. Yo entiendo esta información y le doy mi consentimiento voluntario a participar en esta investigación. Tengo 18 años o más y soy un(a) estudiante de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala.
______________________________________ Firma del participante
_______________________ Fecha
124
APPENDIX J DEBRIEFING FORM Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study! This study is concerned with how students of Spanish process and comprehend sentences as they read in Spanish. Previous studies have found that native speakers process and comprehend sentences differently from non-native speakers. I would like to know more about how these processes can be similar and different among the two groups. In particular, as a researcher of Linguistics, I am interested in finding out how second language learners with a first language of English process and comprehend their second language (Spanish). In order to test the non-native speakers, we invited people who were students of Spanish at Florida State University to participate in this study. In this study, you were asked to read sentences in Spanish and comprehend the meaning of those sentences. The results from this study will provide a description of what we hope to accomplish with the study. If you would like a copy of the results from this study or have further questions, please contact the researcher, Elena Belkin. In addition, if you have any concerns about any aspect of the study, you may contact the Chair of Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board at (850) 644-8633 or at
[email protected]. Thank you again for your participation.
125
APPENDIX K IRB APPROVAL AND RENEWAL LETTERS The Florida State University Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392 APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 3/23/2015 To: Elena Belkin Address: MC 1540 (Department of Modern Languages & Linguistics) Dept.: MODERN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Sentence Processing in Spanish The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and one member of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process. The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required. If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects. If the project has not been completed by 3/21/2016 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee. You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol 126
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others. By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations. This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446. Cc: Michael Leeser, Advisor HSC No. 2014.14296
127
The Florida State University Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392 RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 3/18/2016 To: Elena Belkin Address: MC 1540 (Department of Modern Languages & Linguistics) Dept.: MODERN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research Sentence Processing in Spanish Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by 3/17/2017, you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the committee. If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others. By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations. Cc: Michael Leeser, Advisor HSC No. 2016.17802
128
REFERENCES Andersen, R. (1986). El desarrollo de la morfología verbal en el español como segundo idioma. In J. Meisel (Ed.), Adquisición del lenguaje—Aquisição da linguagem. Frankfurt: Klaus-Dieter Vervuert Verlag. Andersen, R. (1991). Developmental Sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories, T. Huebner and C. Ferguson (eds), 305-324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 2]. Andersen, R. and Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133-156. Andersen, R. and Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (eds), 527-570. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ayoun, D. and Salaberry, R. (2008). Acquisition of English Tense-Aspect morphology by advanced French instructed learners. Language Learning, 58.3, 555-595. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguitics, 13, 253-278. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). The interaction of pedagogy and natural sequences of in the acquisition of tense and aspect. In F. Eckman, et al. (Eds.) Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy, 151-168. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 471-508. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Bergström, A. (1996). The acquisition of tense and aspect in SLA and FLL: a study of learner narratives in English (SL) and French (FL). Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 308-330. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Reynolds, D.W. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 107-131.
129
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 3-76. New York: Cambridge University Press. Binnick, R. (1991). Time and the verb: a guide to tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press. Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. A Study of the Relationship between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University Press. Cameron, R. (2011). Native and nonnative processing of modality and mood in Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Camps, J. (2000). Aspectual distinctions in Spanish as a foreign language: The early stages of oral production. IRAL, 40, 179-210. Collins, L. (2002). The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning, 52, 43-94. Comajoan, L. (2009). The early L2 acquisition of past morphology: Perfective morphology as an aspectual marker or default tense marker? In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages, 31-43. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Comrie, B. (1976/1981/1985). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. De Miguel, E. (1992). El aspecto en la sintaxis del español: Perfectividad e Imperfectividad. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Engelberg, S. (2002). The magic moment: what it means to be a punctual verb. BLS, 25: 109-121.
130
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English-Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187-220. Giorgi, A. & F. Pianesi, (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press. Hawkins, R. & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed formal features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13: 187-226. Jergerski, J. & VanPatten, B. (2014). Research Methods for Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., & Wooley, J.D. (1982). Paradigms and Processes in Reading Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(2), 228-238. Keating, G. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59, 503-535. Keating, G. (2010). The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing, 113-134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klein, E., Stoyneshka, I., Adams, K., Rose, T., Pugash, Y., & Solt, S. (2004). Past tense affixation in L2 English: the effects of lexical aspect and perceptual salience. In Alejna Brugos, Linnea Micciulla & Christine E. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Leeser, M., Brandl, A., & Weissglass, C. (2011). Task effects in second language sentence processing research. In P. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 179-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Li, P., & Bowerman, M. (1998). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in Chinese. First Language, 18, 311-350. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1996). Narrative strategies: A case study of developing storytelling skills by a learner of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 80, 271-286. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2000). The acquisition of temporal expression in Spanish oral narratives: Exploring learners‟ perceptions. Hispania, 83, 830-844. Madden, C.J. & Zwaan, R.A. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representation? Memory & Cognition, 31, 663-672.
131
Marinis, T., L. Roberts, C. Felser, & H. Clahsen (2005). Gaps in second language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 53-78. McCarthy, C. (2008). Morphological variability in the comprehension of agreement: An argument for representation over computation. Second Language Research, 24(4), 459486. Montrul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2002). The L2 acquisition of morphosyntactic and semantic properties of the aspectual tenses preterite and imperfect. In The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax, ed. Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Juana Liceras, 113-149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and nearnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25: 351-398. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan. Roberts & Liszka (2013). Processing of tense/aspect-agreement violations on-line in the second language: a self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of L2 English. Second Language Research, 29, 413-439. Robinson, R. (1995). The aspect hypothesis revisited: a cross-sectional study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 16, 344-370. Salaberry, R. (1999). The development of Past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20, 2: 151-178. Salaberry, R. (2000). The development of past tense morphology in L2 Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Salaberry, R. (2003). Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania, 86(3), 559-73. Salaberry, R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition. A theoretical model. London: Continuum. Salaberry, R. (2011). Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 184-202. Schell, K. (2000). Functional categories and the acquisition of aspect in L2 Spanish: A longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.
132
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72. Shirai, Y. and R. Andersen. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language, 71, 4, 743-762. Slabakova, R. (2001). Telicity in the Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research, 19, 42-75. Slabakova, R. and Montrul, S. (2002). On viewpoint aspect interpretation and its L2 acquistion: A UG perspective. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology, 363-395. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slabakova, R. and Montrul, S. (2003). Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition, 11, 165-196. Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer. Smith, C. (1983). A theory of aspectual choice. Language, 59, 479-501. Suñer, M. (1994). V-movement and the licensing of argument wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 335-372. SuperLab (Version 5) [Computer software]. (2014). San Pedro, CA: Cedrus Corporation. Torrego, E. (1984). The Dependence of Objects. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Travis, L. (2000). Event structure in syntax. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 145185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to Form and Content in the Input. An Experiment in Consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 5-31, Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum. VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 115-135. Mahwah, NJ.
133
VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243. VanPatten, B. & Jegerski (2010). Research in Second Language Processing and Parsing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. VanPatten, B., Keating, G., and Leeser, M. (2012). Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem: Evidence from on-line methodology. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 109-140. VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (2007). Introduction: The nature of theories and models. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 1-16. Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics and philosophy (pp. 97-121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Reprinted from Philosophical Review, 1957, 66, 143-160). Yap et al. (2009). Aspectual asymmetries in the mental representation of events: Role of lexical and grammatical aspect. Memory & Cognition, 37 (5), 587-595. Zagona, K. (1988). Verb phrase syntax: a parametric study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Reidel. Zwaan, R. and Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
134
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Elena is originally from Columbus, Ohio, where she completed her B.A. in Spanish and M.Ed. in Foreign and Second Language Education at Ohio State University. She then continued her studies in Flagstaff, Arizona where she graduated with a M.A. in Spanish from Northern Arizona University. She will receive her Ph.D. in Spanish Linguistics from Florida State University in the spring of 2017. Elena enjoys teaching Spanish and her research interests include second language acquisition and psycholinguistics.
135
