Acquisition of L2 English morphology

Abstract

This study investigates the status of morphology in the L2 English of three members of a family from Indonesia (parents and their 5-year-old daughter) who have lived, studied or worked in Australia for a year. The investigation is contextualized against various learning settings in which the informants have learned English: formal instruction in the foreign language environment, naturalistic learning in the target language setting, and a mixture of formal and naturalistic learning in the target language environment. Following the developmental hierarchy for English morphology (Pienemann, 2005; Bettoni and Di Biase, forthcoming) and analytical procedures in Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998, 2005), we found the informants were at different stages of L2 English morphology, with the father being the most advanced and the daughter the least. We also found a systematic developmental profile of each informant in line with the developmental hierarchy for English morphology. Both findings are discussed with reference to the developmental sequences and the role of learning settings in SLA.

Applicability of processability theory to Japanese adolescent EFL learners: A case study of early L2 syntactic and morphological development

“…With reference to Dao's (2007) findings, Charters et al (2011) conducted a further discussion using a speech processing model called Weaverþþ (Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999) and clarified that this counterevidence to L1 transfer was still within range of PT's Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis that "one can only transfer what can be processed" (Pienemann & Kebler, 2011, p. 75). Zhang and Widyastuti (2010) also empirically revealed L1 transfer in L2 morphological use within the PT framework. They investigated English L2 morphological development for an Indonesian L1 family (N ¼ 3).…”

“…However, the latest PT publications have explicitly hypothesized that the development of syntax and morphology has two separate motivations (Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2013;Pienemann & Kebler, 2012;Yamaguchi, 2013). In this context, recent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on English L2 learners have demonstrated the effects of L1 influence and individual variation on morphological development (Charters, Dao, & Jansen, 2011;Dao, 2007;Dyson, 2009;Zhang & Widyastuti, 2010). Meanwhile, other longitudinal child L2 studies have confirmed PT prediction (Yamaguchi, 2013;Yamaguchi & Kawaguchi, 2014).…”

Review of selected research in applied linguistics published in Australia (2008–2014)

“…Australian SLA research in the reviewed period has also covered a diverse range of areas including that with a focus on: vocabulary (e.g. Harrington & Jiang 2013; Van Zeeland 2013); morphology (Zhang & Widyastuti 2010); feedback (e.g. written feedback – Bloomfield 2013); affective factors (e.g.…”

Acquisition of English Language Prepositions in the Absence of Formal Grammar Teaching

“…However, because the quantity and quality of the input is affected by many factors, exposure to the target language may not be as much as expected (Norton, 2000;Goldstein, 2001). L2 also plays a role in language acquisition, where the extent of acquisition of the language depends on L2 proficiency (Zhang & Widyastuti, 2010).…”