2.1 Introduction
“To have another language is to possess a second soul.” ‒Charlemagne The acquisition of a second language, in naturalistic or formal instruction settings, generally implicates an addition in mere linguistic terms. In this sense, the learner is endowed with a new linguistic system and the corresponding subsystems (i.e., phonetic, phonological, morphosyntactic, and semantic) for the expression of the surrounding world and its notions. This addition has been referred to as “additive bilingualism” by which a person incorporates another language to his/her total linguistic repertoire (McKay, 2005, p. 284). The additional language, as the epithet contends, provides its learners with an extra spirit or psyche through which we speak, hear, learn, think, feel, and live.
Adult second language learners or “late-starting acquirers” (Ortega, 2009, p. 4) have an advantage in comparison to child L1 acquisition since they arrive at the L2 learning process with an earlier acquired language; hence, they are cognitively developed and have so far internalized a range of concepts like person, number, past, present, future, imperfective versus perfective, etc. The task for the adult learner is to learn to map those concepts to new expressive devices in the L2 (e.g., past forms), which are sometimes non-existent or have no absolute correspondence in their L1. Moreover, the prescriptive prototypical form-meaning combinations are taught (von
oriented, rule-based). Across proficiency levels, learners not only incorporate more past markers into their L2 repository, but they also move from the one-form, one-function principle to a multifunctional stage (one form, multiple meanings/ one meaning multiple forms; Andersen, 1984). This movement from one stage to another entails a complex restructuring of the IL’s verbal system, since “integrating new forms to fulfill a function affects variants already in the system. Since some forms are also used across multiple functions, adjustments to form-function relationships can be quite complex” (Kanwit, submitted, p. 1). The most advanced learners (i.e., advanced, superior, and distinguished proficiency levels) discover that the clear-cut functional taxonomies are not categorical in the TL and find that NS variation is highly common cross- dialectically. In other words, the neat form-function classifications taught in the L2 classroom are not invariantly followed by the NS. Consequently, as a byproduct of intra- and inter-native-speaker variation (i.e., individual and cross-dialectal respectively), a larger number of form-meaning associations are added to the TL for the L2 learner to acquire. This ultimately brings about a challenging process of the verbal system reorganization that eventually enhances the learner’s verbal repertoire and the meanings that each form within it encodes.
At this point, it is important to link TA morphology development to syntactic complexity within first and second language acquisition, due to its relevance in the discussion of our results in chapter 4. Givón (2009) states that syntactic complexity cannot be analyzed in isolation without pairing it with cognitive complexity. Specifically, Givón lists three possible correlations:
a. Coding: More complex mentally-represented events are coded by more complex linguistic/syntactic structures.
b. Processing-I: More complex mentally-represented events require more complex mental processing operations.
c. Processing-II: More complex syntactic structures require more complex mental processing operations. (p. 12)
There is strong evidence that the developmental trend in the genesis of syntactic complexity, in diachrony, ontogeny, and in evolution is primarily compositional (synthesis), following the general trend:
a. single words > simple clause
b. simple clause > clause chains (parataxis)
c. clause chains > complex/embedded clauses (syntaxis)
In child language development, all three stages are well documented (Bloom 1973; Bowerman 1973; Scollon 1976; Ochs et al. 1979). In language diachrony, trends a and b are logically absent, since adults already use multi-propositional discourse, (clause chains); however, the last stage c is well documented as is its direction — from parataxis to syntaxis (Heine & Kuteva 2007; -Hilpert & Koops 2006; Koops & Hilpert 2008; Pawley 2008). Furthermore, spatio-temporal reference is primarily non-displaced (here-and now, you and-I, this-and-that) and displaced reference develops later. Another important finding is that conversational turns are most typically mono-clausal, and discourse coherence is mono-propositional (Bloom 1973; Scollon 1976) Communication is heavily context-dependent (pragmatic, attended) with well-coded lexicon and rule-governed (automated) syntactic processing develop later (Bates 1976; Givón 1979).
These features of the communicative ecology are strongly correlated, and it is their gradual shift between the ages of 1 and 3–5 years that motivates the rise of adult-like well-coded communication — lexicon (phonology) and morpho-syntax (grammar) — as it must have done in language evolution.
The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect (TA) morphology has been primarily studied as the acquisition of form-meaning combinations (i.e., connections between an L2 form and its corresponding meaning/function). These studies have tried to determine how the connections between form and meaning are established in the IL and how the TA system is constructed across IL development. A form is considered a surface realization of some kind of underlying representation and it thus encodes a type of meaning (VanPatten, Williams, & Rott, 2004). The authors particularly claim that TA forms are mapped to “displaced or abstract semantic referential meaning” (e.g., -é, -ó in Spanish and “-ed” in English normally encode perfectivity) (p. 3).
Form-meaning connections are acquired through three processes (VanPatten et al., 2004). The first one consists of making the initial connection between form and meaning, which occurs when the learner registers that a certain form associates with a certain function or when they discover that a new meaning/concept is encoded by a particular form. The initial form-meaning connections are established in terms of prototypes and exemplars (e.g., perfectivity and preterit in Spanish). Subsequent input and increased exposure cause re-adjustment of the initial form- meaning connections as learners add other meanings to an already learned form (e.g. iterativity is mapped to the preterit). Initial form-meaning associations may be characterized as being located on any point on various continuums partial to complete, weak to robust, nontarget-like to target- like (VanPatten et al., 2004). It is possible for a learner to only connect part of a new form to its meaning, or a new form to part of its meaning, in which case the connection is partial. Even if form-meaning connections are complete, they may still be initially weak and thus they might disappear easily if not strengthened by subsequent input. Robust connections in acquisition are correlated with the learner’s increased exposure to those connections. Finally, the learner’s form- meaning connections can be either native-like or non-native-like, such as in the case of the
overgeneralization of the preterit across all past contexts, even those contexts that prototypically encode imperfectivity.
The second acquisitional process of form-meaning connections is the subsequent processing of the connection in question. The acquisition of form-meaning connections is highly complex due to the typical multifunctionality of a form. That is to say, one form can express one meaning or multiple ones or multiple forms can encode the same meaning and the learners acquire the nuances of the meaning of a form progressively. Therefore, the learner’s initial form-meaning mappings tend to be incomplete (i.e., one form encodes an invariant single meaning and one meaning is conveyed by only one form, Andersen, 1984). However, these partial connections may fill in additional elements of either the form or its meaning for a more complete mapping. For example, VanPatten’s (1987) reassessment of the 1985 data on the acquisition of the Spanish copulas by beginning L2 learners found a certain acquisition order consisting of five stages:
1. absence of the copula
2. use of only ser where either only ser or estar was required 3. use of estar with the present progressive
4. use of estar for location 5. use of estar for conditions
Particularly with respect to the development of TA morphology, the beginning learner may map the imperfect in Spanish only onto habitual situations. After several encounters with ensuing form-meaning connections in other linguistic contexts, the learner may fill in the incomplete mappings of the imperfect, for example, by associating it with progressive actions. A fully-fledged TA system is acquired at higher proficiency levels when the learner shows evidence of use of complete (i.e., more native-like) and robust form-meaning associations. For instance, the learner
may initially use the preterit in Spanish with punctual perfectivity, then with durative perfectivity, and finally with a pragmatic softening function, when preterit-meaning connections have been completed. Notably, a form may initially connect with meaning weakly in the input so future input exposure will help form-meaning connections to become stronger, more robust. However, strengthening is correlated with frequency. As a consequence, form-meaning connections can only become stronger if they are highly represented in the input, otherwise the connections may weaken and disappear, such as in the case of subjunctive verb forms. The input often contains forms that are potentially in competition with one another for the expression of meaning, as is the case of the dyad imperfect-imperfect progressive for progressive actions. Particularly, the learner must learn that progressivity can be encoded by the aforementioned forms, and thus remap the form-meaning associations so that progressivity is also associated with an additional form. This adjustment results in the restructuring of the learner’s developing IL.
The third process involved in the acquisition of form-meaning connections is their access for use, which “applies to both comprehension and production processes” (VanPatten et al., 2004, p. 10). Once the connection is part of the IL, it is potentially accessible for comprehension and production. Accessing a connection for use entails its strengthening in memory for later use. The authors state that the acquisition of a connection is dependent on input exposure but accessing the connection for use also fosters strengthening and more effective learning.
This complex process of mapping new forms to functions and new functions to a form can result in a type of learning that has been traditionally referred to as U-shaped behavior or “U- shaped behavioral development” (Kellerman, 1985). This acquisition pattern entails that “the L2 learner's performance in some domains is error-free at an early stage, then deviates from the target norm and finally becomes error-free again at a later stage” (Shirai, 1990, p. 685). In other words,
the first encounters with form-meaning pairs result in target-like use (i.e., high rates of correct use) and at a later stage, accuracy decreases precisely when other form-meaning pairs are entering the IL and thus as the verb system makes adjustments. As many form-meaning connections are encountered more frequently in the input, learners’ rates of use and accuracy increase again toward NS norms, but only when this use is reflective of more robust or complete form-meaning connections in the learners’ IL. For example, at beginner stages learners may use the preterit for pastness across perfective and imperfective aspects, showing evidence of an overgeneralization and thus an overuse of the form. In a later stage, as other forms (e.g., the imperfect and imperfect- progressive in Spanish), are learned and used for certain meanings (e.g., imperfectivity and progressivity), the preterit may decrease in use during this time of adaptation and reach a point of underuse, due to an increase of information about and exposure to the new forms. At advanced proficiency levels, the verbal system reaches a final reorganizational stage, with more complete form-meaning connections. Consequently, the preterit regains importance but in a balanced manner and thus it is used in a target-like way and is mapped to its prototypical meanings.
Second language acquisition involves the interaction of linguistic, cognitive, and social factors (Shirai, 2004). He claims that there are two factor types that principally determine the acquisition process, namely learner internal and external factors (Long & Sato, 1984). The former type includes universal tendencies, individual differences (e.g., aptitude, motivation), and the learner’s native language. The latter factors include the roles of input and instruction. VanPatten et al. (2004) suggest that the primary goal of SLA is to determine what is universal in language acquisition and across language learning contexts. However, a consideration of the non-universal factors helps in examining diversity in SLA (Shirai, 2004). With regard to universal predispositions, an important question that has guided previous research is whether there are
aspects in second language acquisition that do not vary or show very little variation. One such universal mechanism is Andersen’s (1984) one-to-one principle, considered as a first step in the IL system construction by which “an intended underlying meaning is expressed with one clear invariant surface form or construction” (p. 79). Under this principle, the L2 Spanish beginning learner is expected to use preterit with punctual telic verbs for instantaneous perfective past situations. Only at a later stage, will the learner be able to refer to a perfective durative situation with the preterit. Nevertheless, this attested acquisitional pattern may not show such issues, depending on whether or not the learner’s L1 is typologically different from the target language.
Three studies lend support for the importance of the L1 on the acquisition of tense-aspect systems contingent to the TL type. Izquierdo and Collins (2008) showed that L1 Spanish learners of L2 French acquired perfective and imperfective morphology faster and in a more target-like manner than their L1 English peers, due to the morphosyntactic similarities between both Romance languages. Specifically, both French and Spanish use differing past morphemes to encode perfectivity and imperfectivity, although the former meaning is expressed by the passé compossé in French, which resembles the Spanish perfect, but by the preterit in Spanish. Secondly, these researchers carried out a retrospective analysis with some of the participants so that they could explain their selection of perfective and imperfective morphemes on the cloze test used to conduct the study. Results indicated that the hispanophone learners made use of the L1-L2 similarities (i.e., the fact that Spanish marks perfective/imperfective distinction), whereas the L1 English learners relied on the lexical aspect of verbs to a greater extent. Therefore, as Thane (2018) explains, there is an undeniable role of the L1, “particularly when it bears structural similarity to the L2 in question” (p. 267).
Another study that provided evidence for L1 influence was Collins’s (2002), which studied L2 English past morphology by L1 French speakers. Results pointed to a negative effect of the learner’s L1 reflected in their (over)use of the present perfect across the L2 English past perfective contexts containing a telic verb, which required the simple past. Other L1 background learners did not yield these same results.
Rosi (2009) investigated connectionist simulations of verb semantic bias in the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology in L2 Italian, which she compared with actual L1 German and L1 Spanish speakers learning Italian in an academic context. A facilitative role of the L1 was attested among the L1 Spanish learners, who learned the imperfect form faster than the L1 German peers due to Spanish and Italian typological similarities.
With regard to the learner-external factors that may affect language acquisition, input has been of crucial importance in theories of first and second language acquisition and has been widely investigated in previous research. Language learning is considered to be input-driven, and input is language experience, that is to say, the learner’s experience with form-meaning connections across various contexts (Gurzynski-Weiss, Geeslin, Daidone, Linford, Long, Michalski, & Solon, 2018).8 In this sense, and according to usage-based approaches to language (e.g., Bybee, 2010), frequency is a central aspect of input and a key determinant of first and second language acquisition. All linguistic units are extracted from language use in the input, which contains information about the frequency of occurrence of linguistic elements and their associations as well as their most likely contexts of occurrence (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009). All the rules of language are structural regularities that emerge from the learner’s observation of the distributional features of the input
(Ellis, 2002). The learner extracts from the input the most frequent form-meaning mappings, their regularities, and their ensuing number of exemplars in order to construct his/her IL’s grammatical system.
This dissertation investigates the acquisition of past-time expression in L2 Spanish, especially examining learner form-meaning connections in terms of their emergence and development, with special focus on the restructuring and reorganization of the learner’s verbal repository. The main goal is to determine the extent to which L2 acquisition of TA morphology is constrained by both universal and learner-external factors, and whether each stage of acquisition is characterized by different sociolinguistic conditioning of past morphology (i.e., independent predictors) and expressive devices. Also, as a concept-oriented study, all means of expression (i.e., pre-morphological and morphological) will be examined in terms of the functions that they convey and how these functions change across levels of competency, leading to a more fully-fledged verbal system consisting of robust and complete form-meaning associations.
2.2 Functionalist form-oriented and concept-oriented analyses in the acquisition of past