Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 8:4 (2018) ► pp.411–445

Bidirectional cross-linguistic influence in late bilingualism

Evidence from the container-content relation

 | University of Arizona, USA
 | University of Texas at Austin, USA
The container-content relation represents a set of nominal configurations unexplored in the acquisition literature. Whereas in English the switch from a noun-noun compound (water bottle) to a noun-prepositional phrase (bottle of water) is associated with a semantic shift from container to content, Spanish and Arabic adopt single canonical configurations for both conditions, noun-prepositional phrase and noun phrase, respectively. Importantly, Spanish, Arabic, and English display structural overlap in the content condition maintained by head-first isomorphic strings. In the container condition, they show structural dissimilarity; whereas English uses a head-final construction, Arabic and Spanish consistently use head-first constructions. Results from an elicited sentence-reordering task demonstrate that advanced late learners pattern native speakers when tested in Spanish but not when tested in English. Additionally, when tested in English, Arabic-speaking and Spanish-speaking learners overextend their L1 canonical configurations to both conditions. Furthermore, bilingual native speakers do not perform at ceiling, suggesting bidirectional cross-linguistic influence.
Keywords: bidirectional cross-linguistic influence, structural overlap, syntax-semantics interface, container-content relation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Structural phenomenon under consideration
    • The container-content relation as a syntax-semantics interface property
    • Nominal compounding in SLA studies
    • Interface phenomena in SLA studies
  • The present study
    • Research questions and predictions
    • Participant profile
    • Methods and design
    • Results
      • Spanish-English bilinguals
      • Arabic-English bilinguals
      • Comparison between Spanish-English and Arabic-English bilinguals
      • English monolingual group
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.15012.aza
References (88)
References
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2003). An investigation of determinacy in the grammar of NS and end-state NNS. Paper presented at Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics (GURT), Georgetown, D.C.
Alhawary, M. T. (2011). Modern standard Arabic grammar: A learner’s guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second Language Research, 301, 3–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous morphology (Vol. 621). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.343–356). Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (2000). The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects (Vol. 161). Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. & Choueiri, L. (2013). The syntax of Arabic from a generative perspective. The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. In J. Owens (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics (pp.115–164). Chicago: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2009). Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.). The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 401–424). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 331, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H., (1996). The construct in review. In J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic grammar (pp. 30–61). Holland Academic Graphics: The Hague.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, C., De Garavito, J. B., & Prévost, P. (2008). Methodological issues in the L2 acquisition of a syntax/semantics phenomenon: How to assess L2 knowledge of mood in Spanish relative clauses. In J. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp.13–24). Somerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Boucher, P. (1990). Teaching compound nouns in English. CIEREC/Travaux, LXXVI. France: Université de Saint Étienne.Google Scholar
Boucher, P., F. Dannam & P. Sébillot (1993). Compounds: An intelligent tutoring system for learning to use compounds in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 61, 249–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (1997). Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 341, 35–50.Google Scholar
(2003). Effects of the second language on the first (Vol. 31). Clevedon, N.Y.: Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuza, A. (2013). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject – verb inversion in heritage Spanish. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 171, 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuza, A., & Frank, J. (2011). Transfer effects at the syntax – semantics interface: The case of double que questions in heritage Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal, 81, 66–89.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6(4), 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R. A., & Swanson, K. A. (2001). Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of combien extractions in English-French interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 9(3), 175–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovolsky, M., Katamba, F., & O’Grady, W. D. (1997). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Döpke, S. (2000). Generation of and retraction from cross-linguistically motivated structures in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fassi-Fehri, A. (1999). Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Linguistica, 531, 105–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R., & Piske, T. (2002). Assessing bilingual dominance. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(04), 567–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foroodi-Nejad, F., & Paradis, J. (2009). Crosslinguistic transfer in the acquisition of compound words in Persian – English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(04), 411–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, J. (2013). Derivational complexity effects in bilingual adults: Instances of interrogative inversion in Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS). (pp. 143–155). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lieberman, M., & Gualmini, A. (2010). Acquiring the scope of disjunction and negation in L2: A bidirectional study of learners of Japanese and English. Language Acquisition, 17(3), 127–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holes, C. (2004). Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. and Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 31, 227–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, I. (2009). Topicality and clitic doubling in L2 Bulgarian: A test case for the interface hypothesis. In M. Bowles, T. Ionin, S. Montrul, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA) (pp. 17–24). Chicago.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(03), 483–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. & Sharwood-Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kremers, J. (2005). Adjectival Constructs in Arabic. Linguistische berichte, 2031, 331–348.Google Scholar
Liceras, J., Díaz, L., & Salomaa-Robertson, T. (2002). The compounding parameter and the word-marker hypothesis. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & J. M Liceras (Eds.). The acquisition of Spanish morphosyntax (pp. 209–237). Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M. and Díaz, L. (2000). Triggers in L2 Acquisition: The case of Spanish N-N compounds. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 197–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liceras, J. M., & Valenzuela, E. (1998). The compounding parameter in L2 acquisition: The subset principle revisited. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA). Pittsburgh, PA.
Lieber, R. (2006). English word-formation processes. In P. Stekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.). Handbook of word-formation (pp. 375–428). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006). The development of the syntax-information structure interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (pp. 371–399), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marull, C. H. (2015). Syntactic position constrains cross-linguistic activation. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 153–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, M.A., (1989). The sentential structure of Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2011). Interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua 121(4), 591–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moyna, M. (2011). Compounds words in Spanish: Theory and history. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 41, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 631(s1),1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 175–205.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piera, C. (1995). On Compounding in English and Spanish. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2014). English genitive variation – the state of the art. English Language and Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Linguistic epistemology and the notion of monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences: L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 951–973. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). On the comparative fallacy of comparisons and why SLA is bilingualism. Invited colloquium, (Why) Does SLA Need a Bilingual Turn? . Iowa State University, USA.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2008). Poverty-of-the-stimulus and SLA epistemology: Considering L2 knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language Acquisition, 15(4), 270–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shameem, N. (1998). Validating self-reported language proficiency by testing performance in an immigrant community: The Wellington Indo-Fijians. Language Testing, 15(1), 86–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2004). The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua, 114(12), 1465–1526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2002). The compounding parameter in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 507–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: A bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research, 22(4), 498–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The bilingual/multilingual native control. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF). Ames: Iowa.
(2013). Adult second language acquisition: A selective overview with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 31, 48–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Montrul, S. (2003). Genericity and aspect in L2 acquisition. Language Acquisition, 11(3), 165–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. (1995). Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.Google Scholar
(2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 771, 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan, (Eds.). Syntax and Variation (pp. 55–80). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Gradedness and Optionality in Mature and Developing Grammars. G. Fanselow, C. Fery, M. Schlesewsky, and R. Vogel (Eds.), Gradience in Grammar Generative Perspectives (pp. 106–123). Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
(2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strik, N., & Pérez-Leroux, A. T. (2011). Jij doe wat girafe?: Wh-movement and inversion in Dutch-French bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(2), 175–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I, Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax – semantics and syntax – discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T., Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller, (Eds.). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.653–664). Cascadilla Press, Somerville.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, E. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of Spanish CLLD constructions. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Pr’evost, (Eds.), Inquiries in Linguistic Development (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, S. (2012). Derivation and Compounding. In J. Ignacio, H. A. & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, (pp. 209–226). Wiley: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 91, 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Language Studies, 11, 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White L. (2009) Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). Leeds: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121(4), 577–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, V. & Matthews, S. (2009). Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual and multilingual contexts. Invited paper at the 2009 International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB7). University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Camacho, José
2024. <em>Spiderwoman/ mujer araña</em>: N-N compounds and structural symmetry. A view from bilingual heritage speakers.. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Lebkuecher, Amy & Barbara C. Malt
2024. Does L2 influence on use of L1 animacy constraints depend on alignment of syntactic and semantic features?: Evidence from Japanese–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 28:3 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. 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.