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

Effects of input frequency and microvariation on knowledge of negative inversion in L2 English

ORCID logo | Masaryk University Brno
ORCID logo | University College of Education Upper Austria
The present study investigates whether L2 learners of English distinguish between (un)grammatical word orders after fronted negative adverbials to identify negative inversion. Previous research on transfer and resetting of verb second (V2) in L1 German–L2 English is extended to explore residual V2 in the form of negative inversion. An acceptability judgment task elicited sentence ratings from advanced German-speaking learners of English for fronted negative adverbials with local and sentential scope. In addition, corpus frequency data of these negative adverbials were related to the learners’ ratings in order to investigate the potential role of input effects. Results suggest that linguistic constraints on microvariation with respect to fronting negative adverbials are broadly in place for learners at this proficiency level, as the scope of fronted negation has an effect on acceptability of negative inversion. Continued significant differences in acceptability judgements of advanced learners compared to native speakers indicate, however, that learners have not completely converged on the target pattern of microvariation. This is related to frequency and reliability of input.
Keywords: negative inversion, verb second (V2), cross-linguistic influence, input frequency, microvariation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Frequency, ambiguity and microvariation in word order acquisition
  • 3.Residual V2 and the acquisition of word order in L1 German — L2 English
  • 4.Patterns of negative fronting and (Non-)Inversion in English
  • 5.Corpus evidence for the distribution of negative inversion
  • 6.Acceptability judgement study
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2Materials and procedure
  • 6.3Data coding and analysis
    • 6.3.1Acceptability rating analysis
    • 6.3.2Grammaticality analysis
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Acceptability analyses
    • 7.2Grammaticality analyses
  • 8.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (43)
References
American Psychological Association (APA) (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). [URL]
Aujla, H. (2023). d′: Sensitivity at the optimal criterion location. Behavior Research Methods, 55 (5), 2532–2558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59 (4), 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68 (3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNC Consortium (2007). The British National Corpus, XML Edition. Oxford Text Archive, [URL]
British Association of Applied Linguistics (BAAL) (2021). Recommendations on good practice in applied linguistics. 4th edition, available at [URL]. Accessed 15 April 2024.
Busterud, G., Dahl, A., Kush, D., & Listhaug, K. F. (2023). Verb placement in L3 French and L3 German: The role of language-internal factors in determining cross-linguistic influence from prior languages. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13 (5), 693–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2022). ordinal. Regression models for ordinal data. R package (Version 2022.11.16) [Computer software]. [URL]
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., Titak, A., & McNamara, D. (2014). Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition: Word types, word tokens, and word production. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19 (3), 301–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Linck, J. A. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65 (1), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (2), 161–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnier, M., & Schmitt, N. (2016). Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge? System, 591, 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1995). The syntax of negation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Negative preposing, negative inversion, and the split CP. In L. Horn & Y. Kato (Eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives (pp. 21–61). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervé, M. (2022). RVAideMemoire: Testing and plotting procedures for biostatistics. R package (Version 0.9–81-2) [Computer software]. [URL]
Hopp, H., Bail, J., & Jackson, C. N. (2020). Frequency at the syntax-discourse interface: A bidirectional study on fronting options in L1/L2 German and L1/L2 English. Second Language Research, 36 (1), 65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., & Ferreira, F. (2020). The application of signal detection theory to acceptability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (73). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, I. N., Slabakova, R., Westergaard, M., & Lundquist, B. (2020). The Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 acquisition: L1 Norwegian learners’ knowledge of syntax and morphology in L2 English. Second Language Research, 36(1), 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (2009). An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53 (7), 2583–2595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 11, 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumle, L., Võ, M. L., & Draschkow, D. (2018). mixedpower: a library for estimating simulation-based power for mixed models in R. R package (Version 0.1.0) [Computer software]. [URL]
Kumle, L., Võ, M. L., Draschkow, D. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behaviour Research Methods, 53 (6), 2528–2543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2023). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package (Version 1.8.4-1) [Computer software]. [URL]
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.2.2 “Innocent and Trusting”). Vienna, Austria: R-Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Computer software]. [URL]
Rankin, T. (2012). The transfer of V2: Inversion and negation by German and Dutch learners of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (1), 139–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Input and competing grammars in L2 syntax. Second Language Research, 39 (3), 581–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Speculations on verb second. Grammar in progress. In: J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in progress (pp. 375–386). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robertson, D. & Sorace, A. (1999). Losing the V2 constraint. In: E. Klein & G. Martohardjono (Eds.), The development of second language grammars: A generative approach (pp. 317–361). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8 (4), 448–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Redwood, S. (2011). Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs. A corpus-informed study. In F. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin & Magali Paquot (Eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 45 (pp. 173–208). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. D., & Sprouse, J. (2013). Judgment data. In: R. J. Podeswa & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27–50). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12 (1), 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N. (2003). Negative inversion as nonmovement. Syntax, 6 (2), 183–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31 (1), 137–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2019). Extramural English in Teaching and Learning. Palgrave.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2003). Unlearning V2: Transfer, markedness and the importance of input cues in the acquisition of word order in English by Norwegian children. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook Vol. 3 (pp. 77–101). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2009). The Acquisition of Word Order. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The Acquisition of Linguistic Variation: Parameters vs. Micro-cues. In: Lohndal, T. (Ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque (pp. 275–298). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property–by–property acquisition. Second Language Research, 37 (3), 379–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Lohndal, T., & Lundquist, B. (2023). Variable V2 in Norwegian heritage language: An effect of crosslinguistic influence? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 13 (2), 133–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. (2000). Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change, 12 (3), 231–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar