Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 12:2 (2022) ► pp.220–249

The effect of animacy on object pronoun distinctions in L2 Spanish

| Tennessee Technological University
| University of Pittsburgh

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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Spanish OPs: Forms and regional variation
    • 2.2The competition model
    • 2.3L Spanish OPs
      • Animacy in L Spanish OPs.
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Sensibility decision task
    • 4.2Fill-in-the-blank task
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Research question 1
    • 5.2Research question 2
    • 5.3Research question 3
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 22 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19024.ols
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C.
(2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Pscholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demuth, K., Machobane, M., Moloi, F., & Odato, C.
(2005) Learning animacy hierarchy effects in Sesotho double object applicatives. Language, 81(2), 421–447. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. G., & White, L.
(1999) Assessing L knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15(2), 133–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klee, C. A.
(1989) The acquisition of clitic pronouns in the Spanish interlanguage of Peruvian Quechua speakers. Hispania, 72(2), 402–408. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malovrh, P. A.
(2008) A multifaceted analysis of the interlanguage development of Spanish direct-object clitic pronouns observed in L-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The developmental dimension in instructed second language learning: The L 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 L 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 [URL]
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, 111, 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 11, 57–67.Google Scholar
(1990) Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. SSLA, 12(3), 287–301. DOI logoGoogle 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 L 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar