HERRAMIENTAS UTILIZADAS PARA LA INCORPORACIÓN DE LAS

The next most proficient group is the Lower Intermediate L2 proficiency group (Int.-Low). Learners in this group have been exposed to both the English simple past and the English present perfect and have been instructed in their prescriptive use in their English language courses.

3.2.3 HIGHER INTERMEDIATE PROFICIENCY.

The second most proficient group is the Higher Intermediate L2 proficiency group (Int.-High). Learners in this group have been exposed to both the English simple past and the English present perfect, have been instructed in their prescriptive use in their English language courses, and have had the opportunity for practice with both forms.

3.2.4 ADVANCED PROFICIENCY.

The highest proficiency group is the Advanced L2 proficiency group (Adv.). These learners have been exposed to both the English simple past and the English present perfect, have been instructed in their prescriptive use in their English language courses, and have had the opportunity to practice both forms inside and outside of the classroom. 3.3FIRST LANGUAGE EFFECTS.

One factor that separates adult L2 learners from child L1 learners is that adults approach learning the L2 with a fully formed L1, with all of its feature distinctions fully developed in the linguistic system (Lardiere 2003). That is, adult L2 learners approach the task of learning a language at a different initial state than do child L2 learners.

1971). This is also true of the features that organize tense and aspect within the L1.46 The present investigation is not able to fully incorporate the aspect systems of the

participants’ L1. Specifically, it does not account for the lexical aspect of the translational equivalent verbs in each L1. This failure may introduce some uncertainty into the results; however, it is not expected to confound the data because boundedness, unlike telicity, is a syntactic and semantic relation. The semantic portion (i.e. which verbs can be bounded) varies from language to language, but the syntactic portion (i.e. quantification of a direct object) is comparatively stable across languages, given the semantic requirements are satisfied. The present investigation does attempt to incorporate the tense-aspect systems of the participants’ L1 grammar. It is through this grammatical system that adult L2 learners of English approach the tense-aspect system of English, which is the main focus of this investigation. The L1-influenced interlanguage grammar of an adult L2 learner affects L2 development both through the transfer of linguistic categories and features and through the transfer of entrenched processing patterns. Prior research indicates that L2 development is more inhibited by L1 transfer than it is facilitated by it; this tendency holds even when the L1 and L2 constructions are similar (Bybee 2008). This inhibition emerges most when learners associate an L2 construction with an L1 construction with which it has a ‘misleading similarity’ (Spada et al. 2005:201). It is expected that L1 transfer effects will measurably affect the results of the present investigation.

The potential effects caused by L1 influence are investigated through comparisons of three L2 English user groups divided by first language. The languages selected for

46

For more information on L1 lexical aspectual propertied transferring into the L2, see Nishi and Shirai (2007).

further investigation are Arabic, Chinese, and Other. It is expected that differences in the L1 grammars will result in measurable differences between groups.

3.3.1 ARABIC.

The Arabic verbal system focuses on the perfective-imperfective distinction. That is, for past tense situations, the system can express aspectual meanings similar to those expressed via the (perfective) simple past and the (imperfective) past progressive

grammatical tenses in English. The system does not express aspectual meanings that are directly comparable to the English present perfect. The present investigation is concerned primarily with the effects of the Arabic perfect and the past continuous grammatical tenses. The Arabic perfect describes a completed situation that is usually in the past (Mace 1998; Schulz 2004). Depending on context, the perfect corresponds with either the English simple past or bounded present perfect functions (Badawi et al. 2004). The following example demonstrates a sentence with a bounded predicate in the Arabic perfect that can be accurately translated into English via either the simple past or the present perfect.

(1) rafaḍat al - wizārah al - khutah

reject.PERF the - ministry the - plan

‘The ministry (has) rejected the plan.’

The Arabic past continuous describes an ongoing or iterative past situation. It is used to

express the nonbounded perfects, and it is formed via periphrasis: kāna ‘to be.PERF’ +

V.IMPF (Badawi et al. 2004). This example demonstrates a sentence with a nonbounded

predicate that can be accurately translated into English via the simple past, the present perfect, or the past progressive.

(2) kāna yata‘ahhaduhuhā bi al - ri‘āyati ṭuwāla wujūdihā ma‘ahu

was.PERF promise.IMPF for the - care-take throughout existence

with her

‘He (has) looked after her all of the time she was with him.’

There is no grammatical marker that indicates current relevance in Arabic; the morpheme

with the function most similar to the feature is the actualization particle qad

‘actually/already/yet’ (or one of its variants; Badawi et al. 2004). The Arabic perfect and past continuous can express aspectual relations similar to the present perfect; however, they are more similar to the English simple past and past progressive than to the present perfect. Without the benefit of an aspectual contrast similar to the English simple past and present perfect in the L1, Arabic L1 learners of L2 English will not experience positive L1 transfer of tense-aspect expression, and they will need to acquire the distinction for the first time in the L2.

3.3.2 CHINESE.

The Mandarin Chinese aspectual system expresses aspectual meanings that are similar to those expressed via the English present perfect, but it does so in a manner that is not directly analogous formally and functionally. The present investigation is

concerned primarily with the effects of the aspectual marker le, which marks current

relevance,and is secondarily concerned with the perfective post-verbal particles -le and

the experiential particle -guo. The marker le is a sentence-final particle that indicates ‘the

state of affairs has special current relevance with respect to some particular situation’ (Li & Thompson 1981:240; Li et al. 1982). This marker is not functionally equivalent to the

present perfect; it only expresses the [+CR] feature. Example 3 from Li & Thompson (1981) illustrates the difference in meaning between an unmarked sentence (3a) and one

marked with le (3b).

(3) a. zhè̀i - ge dìfang hĕn ānjìng

this - CL place very peaceful

‘This place is very peaceful’

b. zhè̀i - ge dìfang hĕn ānjìng le

this - CL place very peaceful CR

‘This place has become very peaceful’ / ‘This place is very peaceful now’

The perfective post-verbal particle -le indicates that an occurrence is bounded or

completed (Bayley 2013); combined with le, itgenerates interpretations nearly equivalent

to a bounded present perfect. The experiential post-verbal particle -guo indicates that ‘an

event has been experienced with respect to some reference time’ (Li & Thompson 1981:226). The unmarked interpretation is similar to an iterative nonbounded present

perfect, which can be strengthened further through the use of le (Li & Thompson 1981).

Chinese L1 speakers have the current relevance feature in their L1 grammar, and the L1 grammar has the capability to separate perfective and imperfective aspect in the L1 via

the verb-final particle -le. That is, the L1 grammar has the features that are required to

distinguish the English simple past from the present perfect, and it has the morphosemantics features to mark and semantically distinguish the bounded and nonbounded functions of the English present perfect.

3.3.3 OTHER.

The Other group is composed of speakers from varying L1 backgrounds. Their results are chiefly used as a L2 English user baseline against which the other two groups are measured.