Cover not available

Article In: Language, Interaction and Acquisition: Online-First Articles

L’acquisition du polonais L2 par les apprenants slavophones

ORCiD logo with link | Università di Verona
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.

Article language: French

Résumé
Cet article examine dans quelle mesure les interlangues initiales du polonais L2 d’apprenants slavophones sont compatibles avec les caractéristiques de la Variété de Base décrite par (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. Comme la L1 et la L2 appartiennent toutes les deux au groupe des langues slaves, la proximité remarquable qui en découle a le potentiel de favoriser leur inter-compréhensibilité et d’engendrer des phénomènes intenses de transfert, susceptibles à leur tour d’altérer le parcours acquisitionnel typique.
Sur la base d’une revue d’études empiriques publiées, l’article décrit les étapes d’acquisition de la morphosyntaxe polonaise en fonction de la L1 de l’apprenant (slave ou non slave), en mettant en évidence les effets de la distance interlinguistique. L’analyse révèle que, si certaines caractéristiques sont effectivement compatibles avec la Variété de Base, les interlangues initiales des apprenants slavophones présentent de nombreuses caractéristiques typiques des stades d’acquisition successifs, comme l’organisation syntaxique de l’énoncé.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to determine the extent to which the initial interlanguages of L2 Polish produced by Slavic-speaking learners are compatible with the features of the Basic Variety as described by (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. This research question is particularly stimulating since all the languages in contact belong to the Slavic family. The resulting lexical and grammatical proximity facilitates mutual intelligibility and may lead to intense positive transfer phenomena, producing a different developmental path than that predicted by the Basic Variety hypothesis.
Drawing on a review of published empirical studies, the article describes the acquisitional stages of Slavic L2s according to the learner’s L1 (Slavic or non-Slavic), with a focus on the effects of the distance between the languages in contact. The data reveal that, while the initial interlanguages of Slavic-speaking learners do display features compatible with the basic variety, they also exhibit numerous characteristics typical of a syntactic mode, contrary to the predictions of the Basic Variety hypothesis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1La Variété de Base et ses limites
    • 1.2Transfert
    • 1.3Les langues slaves
  • 2.Questions de recherche et méthodologie
  • 3.L’acquisition des langues slaves par des apprenants non slavophones
    • 3.1Le projet VILLA
      • 3.1.1Tâches d’élicitation des données
      • 3.1.2Résultats
    • 3.2Au-delà du projet VILLA
    • 3.3 Études sur autres langues slaves
  • 4.L’acquisition des langues slaves par des apprenants slavophones
    • 4.1 Études sur la première exposition à la langue cible
    • 4.2 Études sur des apprenants de niveau intermédiaire ou avancé
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Trajectoires d’acquisition
    • 5.2Le rôle de l’apprentissage formel
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Remarquer
  • Author queries
  • References
References (68)
References
Andersen, R. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 177–201). Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andorno, C. & Della Putta, P. (2026). The Basic Variety in learners of closely-related languages : A case study of young Spanish-speaking migrants learning Italian. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 17(1), ###–###.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2015). Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: An exploratory study on subject and object. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 177–193). EuroSLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). L’interferenza grammaticale della prima lingua sulla seconda: Uno studio sul caso accusativo in russo L2. Linguistica e Filologia, 411, 51–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardel, C., & Sanchez, L. (2017). The L2 status factor hypothesis revisited: The role of metalinguistic knowledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning. In T. Angelovska & A. Hahn (Eds.), L3 syntactic transfer: Models, new developments and implications (pp. 85–101). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarska, K. (2011). Błędy interferencyjne w pracach pisemnych Słoweńców uczących się języka polskiego jako obcego. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców, 181, 237–242.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Błędy interferencyjne spowodowane wpływem innego języka obcego w wypowiedziach pisemnych Słoweńców uczących się języka polskiego. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców, 221, 295–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benazzo, S., Dimroth, C., & Andorno, C. (2023). Back to the Basic Variety: Does it emerge only with specific learner profiles, environments and languages? In C. Granget, I. Repiso, & G. Fon Sing (Eds.), Language, creoles, varieties: From emergence to transmission (pp. 29–70). Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernini, G. (2017). The first encounter with a norm: Perception and analysis of L2 initial input. In E. M. Pandolfi, J. Miecznikowski, S. Christopher & A. Kamber (Eds.), Studies on language norms in context (pp. 103–133). Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Dalla fonetica alla fonologia e alla morfologia: La varietà iniziale di polacco L2 del progetto VILLA. In M. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione. Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization (pp. 205–218). Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broeder, P., Extra, G., Van Hout, R., & Voionmaa, K. (1993). Word formation processes in talking about entities. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Vol. 2: results (pp. 41–72). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corder, P. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 71–93). Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Bettoni, C. (eds.). (2015). Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of processability theory. EuroSLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dimroth, C. (2012). Videoclips zur Elizitation von Erzählungen: Methodische Überlegungen und einige Ergebnisse am Beispiel der “Finite Story.” In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren (pp. 77–98). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and language internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through controlled exposure. Language Learning, 68(4), 863–905. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Długosz, P., Kryvachuk, L., & Izdebska-Długosz, D. (2022). Uchodźcy wojenni z Ukrainy — życie w Polsce i plany na przyszłość. Academicon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gooskens, C. (2024). Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Górska, A. (2015). Błędy studentów z Ukrainy — zapobieganie i eliminacja w grupach o zróżnicowanych możliwościach (na podstawie doświadczeń Centrum Partnerstwa Wschodniego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego). Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Kształcenie Polonistyczne Cudzoziemców, 221, 357–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammarberg, B. (2009). Processes in Third Language Acquisition. Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heeringa, W., Gooskens, C., & Van Heuven, V. (2023). Comparing Germanic, Romance and Slavic: Relationships among linguistic distances. Lingua, 2871, 103512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izdebska-Długosz, D. (2021). Polski dla nas : Deklinacja i składnia kontrastywne dla Słowian wschodnich (A2-B2). Progressja.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. (2019). Businessmen and ballerinas take different forms: a strategic resource for acquiring Russian vocabulary and morphology. Russian Language Journal, 69(1), 175–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112–134). Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kostromitina, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022). Elicited Imitation Tasks as a measure of L2 proficiency : A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(3), 886–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Law, D. (2013). Inherited similarity and contact-induced change in Mayan Languages. Journal of Language Contact, 6(2), 271–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The Crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marx, N., & Mehlhorn, G. (2010). Pushing the positive: encouraging phonological transfer from L2 to L3. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 4–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marzec, U. (2022). Znajomość języka polskiego kandydatów włoskich zdających egzaminy certyfikatowe w latach 2004–2015 (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem sprawności pisania) [Thèse de doctorat non publiée]. Uniwersytet Jagielloński.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (2015). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. [URL]
Noseda, V., & Saturno, J. (2025). Integrating the concept of Aktionsart into the teaching of Russian verbal aspect. Russian Linguistics, 49(7). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993). Adult language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piccoli, V. (2017). Interactions plurilingues entre locuteurs romanophones : De l’analyse à une réflexion didactique sur l’intercompréhension en langues romanes [thèse de doctorat]. Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65(1), 123–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2009). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. Kroll & A. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 128–153). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (2007). Full transfer vs. Developmentally moderated transfer: A reply to Bohnacker. Second Language Research, 23(4), 485–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Platforma Migracyjna EWL, Fundacja na rzecz wspierania migrantów na rynku pracy „EWL”, & Studium Europy Wschodniej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. (2023). Obywatele Ukrainy w Polsce i na polskim rynku pracy. Nowe wyzwania i perspektywy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 106–118). Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2–3), 245–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(02), 261–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saturno, J. (2020). Utterance structure in initial L2 acquisition. Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022a). Differential object marking in the L2 Polish of East Slavic learners: Transfer and universal tendencies. I-Land, 21, 28–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022b). Effect of bridge language status in the intercomprehension-based learning of L2 Polish by speakers of Russian. In Z. Chłopek & P. Gębal (Eds.), Bi- and multilingualism from various perspectives of Applied Linguistics (pp. 313–332). V&R Unipress. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022c). Production of inflectional morphology in intercomprehension-based language teaching: the case of Slavic languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(3), 383–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023a). L2 Polish developmental sequences in an intercomprehension context. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 374–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023b). Transfer (or lack thereof) and the accusative case in L2 Polish. In C. Granget, I. Repiso, & G. Fon Sing (Eds.), Language, creoles, varieties: From emergence to transmission (pp. 303–342). Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2026). Inter-Slavic contact at Polish airports: intercomprehension, L2 learning, and linguae francae. Language and Intercultural Communication, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schimke, S., & Dimroth, C. (2018). The influence of finiteness and lightness on verb placement in L2 German: Comparing child and adult learners. Second Language Research, 34(2), 229–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, S. (1994). L’italiano degli spagnoli. Interlingue di immigrati nella Svizzera tedesca. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1157–1256). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D., Rehbein, J., & Verschik, A. (2012). Receptive multilingualism — introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(3), 245–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van De Craats, I., Corver, N., & Van Hout, R. (2000). Conservation of grammatical knowledge: On the acquisition of possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch. Linguistics, 38(2), 221–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Der Auwera, J., & Patard, A. (2015). Le français, la plus germanique des langues romanes ? In L. Brems, R. Möller, & L. Rasier (Éds.), Faits de langue(s). Pour Michel Kefer à l’occasion de son 65ème anniversaire (pp. 9–17). Epubli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanhove, J., & Berthele, R. (2017). Interactions between formal distance and participant-related variables in receptive multilingualism. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 55(1), 23–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Éd.). (2004). Processing Instruction: theory, research, and commentary. Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 91–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vietti, A. (2005). Come gli immigrati cambiano l’italiano: l’italiano di peruviane come varietà etnica. Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue