Article published in:EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 9 (2009)
Edited by Leah Roberts, Georges Daniel Véronique, Anna Nilsson and Marion Tellier
[EUROSLA Yearbook 9] 2009
► pp. 56–75
How is inflectional morphology learned?
This article considers recent explanations of variability in the second language (L2) comprehension of inflectional morphology. The predictions of five accounts are spelled out: the emergentist account, the Feature Assembly Hypothesis, the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis, the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis. These predictions are checked against the results of an experimental study on the L2 acquisition of inflectional morphology (based on an extension of Slabakova and Gajdos 2008). English-native learners of German at beginning and intermediate proficiency levels took a multiple-choice test where they had to supply appropriate missing subjects. The predictions of the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis were largely supported by the experimental findings. It is argued that only accounts looking at mental representation of lexical features adequately explain L2 morphological variability.
Published online: 31 July 2009
Cited by other publications
Blom, Elma, Vasiliki Chondrogianni, Theodoros Marinis & Nada Vasić
Kwame, Abukari & Marit Westergaard
Martins, Custodio & Mário Pinharanda-Nunes
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.