Article in:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

The effect of animacy on object pronoun distinctions in L2 Spanish

| Tennessee Technological University image/svg+xml
| University of Pittsburgh image/svg+xml
When acquiring Spanish object pronouns (OP), English-speaking second language (L2) learners must learn the variety of forms available, word order, and case distinctions. The acquisition of case distinctions in particular is an aspect that has not been thoroughly investigated. Zyzik (2006) showed, through production tasks, that English-speaking L2 Spanish learners overgeneralize the dative form to accusative contexts when the referent is animate. This study investigates how L2 learners use animacy (human, animal, and inanimate object) instead of case marking as cues to interpret and produce L2 Spanish object pronouns. Data from an interpretation task and a fill-in-the-blank production task were collected from 121 intermediate to advanced levels of Spanish learners. Results from linear mixed effects models reveal that learners show effects of the influence of animacy on object pronoun distinction in comprehension as well as production. A key new finding is that learners use the dative form with human referents, reserving accusative forms for animals and inanimate referents. These results provide evidence that animacy cues strongly influence L2 Spanish learners in the formation of their OP paradigm, especially at lower-proficiency levels. As proficiency increases, L2 learners begin to rely on case cues to distinguish Spanish OPs.
Keywords: L2 Spanish object pronouns, Animacy, Case, L2 processing, Spanish interlanguage development
Published online: 22 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19024.ols
References

References

Arche, M. J., & Dominguez, L.
(2011) Morphology and syntax interaction in SLA: A study on clitic acquisition in Spanish. In A. Galani, G. Hicks, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Morphology and its interfaces (pp. 291–320). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1981) Second language acquisition from a functionalist perspective: pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York academy of science conference on native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 190–214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(1982) Functionalist approach to grammar. In L. R. Gleitman & E. Wanner (Eds.), Language acquisition: State of the art (pp. 173–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blanco, J. A., & Donley, P. R.
(2009) Panorama: Introducción a la lengua española (3rd ed.). Boston: Vista Higher Learning.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(1983) The comparitive fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(2009) Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 267–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C.
(2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Pscholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1989) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö., & Fraurud, K.
(1996) Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K., Machobane, M., Moloi, F., & Odato, C.
(2005) Learning animacy hierarchy effects in Sesotho double object applicatives. Language, 81(2), 421–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(2008) German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79(4), 1152–1167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. G., & White, L.
(1999) Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15(2), 133–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Usage-based and form-focused SLA. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M.
(1989) How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts?. In S. M. Gass and J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 183–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. L., García-Amaya, L. J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N. C., & Killam, J.
(2010) The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion environment where use is a variable. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 246–259). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceeding Project.Google Scholar
Harrington, M.
(1987) Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 351–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heap, D.
(2000) Morphological complexity and Spanish object clitic variation. In C. R. Wiltshire and J. Camps (Eds.), Romance phonology and variation: Selected papers from the 30th linguistic symposium on romance languages (pp. 55–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopp, H.
(2016) Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender processing in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 32(2), 277–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klee, C. A.
(1989) The acquisition of clitic pronouns in the Spanish interlanguage of Peruvian Quechua speakers. Hispania, 72(2), 402–408. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein-Andreu, F.
(1996) Anaphora, deixis, and the evolution of Latin ille. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 305–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson, J. W.
(1996) WebCAPE (Computer Adaptive Placement Exam) [computer software]. Provo, Utah: BYU Creative Works.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. M.
(1994) Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F.
(1987) Morphological factors influencing pronominal reference assignment by learners of Spanish. In T. Morgan, J. F. Lee, & B. VanPatten, Language and language use: Studies in Spanish (pp. 221–232). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2005) Extending the competition model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(7), 69–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The logic of the unified model. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second langauge acquisition (pp. 221–227). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maldonado, R.
(2002) Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malovrh, P. A.
(2008) A multifaceted analysis of the interlanguage development of Spanish direct-object clitic pronouns observed in L2-learner production. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Malovrh, P. A., & Lee, J. F.
(2010) Connections between processing, production and placement: Acquiring object pronouns in Spanish as a second language. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Research in second language processing and parsing (pp. 231–255). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The developmental dimension in instructed second language learning: The L2 acquisition of object pronouns in Spanish. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. K.
(2013) The acquisition of case in Spanish pronominal object clitics in English-speaking college-level L2 learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., & Romero, J.
(2007) The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(2), 315–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ozeki, H. & Shirai, Y.
(2007) Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses?. SSLA, 29(2), 169–196.Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools
(2001) E-prime, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española
(2005) Diccionario panhispánico de dudas [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 14, 2019 from http://​www​.rae​.es
Rusch, D., Domínguez, M., & Garner, L. C.
(2014) Imágenes: An introduction to Spanish language and cultures (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle.Google Scholar
Salgado-Robles, F.
(2014) Variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero. Lenguas Modernas, 43(1), 97–112.Google Scholar
Salgado-Robles, F., & Ibarra, C. E.
(2012) Les voy a echar de menos cuando regrese a los Estados Unidos”: Adquisición de la variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión. Ogigia: Revista electrónica de estudios hispánicos, 11, 61–77.Google Scholar
Sihler, A. L.
(1995) New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C.
(1981) La función pragmática de la duplicación de pronombres clíticos. Boletín del instituto de filología de la universidad de Chile, 31(2), 561–570.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz and S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., Michael, E. B., & Kroll, J. F.
(2004) The roles of study-abroad experience and working-memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(3), 255–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1995) On the nature of clitic doubling. In H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 399–418). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1984) Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–67.Google Scholar
(1990) Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. SSLA, 12(3), 287–301.Google Scholar
(2003) From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Houston, T.
(1998) Contextual effects in processing L2 input sentences. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 53–70.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V.
(1995) El complemento indirecto en español. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Universidad de Santiago.Google Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E.
(1999) Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. In P. Kotey (Ed.) New dimensions in African linguistics and languages (pp. 203–216). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E.
(2006) Learners’ overgeneralization of dative clitics to accusative contexts: evidence for prototype effects in SLA. In C. A. Klee and T. L. Face (Eds.) Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 122–134). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceeding Project.Google Scholar
(2008) Null objects in second language acquisition: Grammatical vs. performance models. Second Language Research, 24(1), 65–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar