A cross-theoretical and cross-linguistic perspective on the L2 acquisition of case systems / L'acquisition de systèmes casuels en L2 : des études à travers plusieurs théories et langues

Abstract

Flanders (FWO) 2 Hopp's results are in line with computation difficulty approaches, like MSIH. Several other studies on case morphology in different language have provided similar findings. For example, Haznedar (2006) and Papadopoulou et al. (2011) on L2 Turkish, but also Satorno (2007, 2011) on clitic case morphology in L2 Italian and L2 Spanish and Grüter (2006) on L2 French object clitics, show that case morphology and clitics are fully acquirable, despite its absence in L1 grammar. The problems with inflectional morphology do not reflect a syntactic deficit, instead the learners in these studies faced difficulties only with the surface realization of Case. and setting up distinct specific research questions concerning different L2s, all articles share the common aim to unravel how learners assign meaning to the seemingly superfluous and cumbersome case markers in the L2. The articles in this special issue stem from a workshop on the L2 acquisition of case and agreement in typologically diverse languages; the workshop was organized at Ghent University and co-funded by a EuroSLA Workshop Grant in 2015. Perspective 1: form-meaning mappings Research within the perspective of form-function mappings investigates the ability of learners to link certain forms with certain functions. From a functionalist point of view, general cognitive principles (such as generalization and analogy) and input characteristics (such as frequency and transparency), instead of innate constraints, guide this linking process. It is assumed that case contrasts in the input provide sufficient information for the learner to infer the case system of the target language. An influential model in this research paradigm is the so-called Competition Model (Bates & MacWhinney, 1987). This model posits that linguistic means such as case, word order, animacy, and pronominality compete for cue reliability (i.e., what is the most reliable cue for determining the subject and direct object in a sentence?), and it examines whether or not learners are able to switch from their L1 cues to L2 cues or whether they simply transfer their L1 cues. Studies on case marking within the Competition Model have dealt with a number of L2s, such as Japanese, German and Russian. For example, Mitsugi and MacWhinney (2010) examined whether L1 English speakers can switch from a reliance on word order cues to a reliance on case marking cues in processing L2 Japanese sentences with different non-canonical word order structures (i.e., noncanonical variants of canonical sentences such as John gaNOM Mary niDAT hon oACC ageta, 'John gave Mary a book'). The findings of the self-paced reading experiment showed that there was no additional processing cost associated with non-canonicity. In other words, L2 learners are able to acquire native-like processing strategies. However, the self-paced reading experiment did not seem sensitive enough to capture the effect of non-canonicity, as Shigenaga (2012), in a study using a correctness decision task, did find longer reaction times and hig...