Bilingualism, second language acquisition, and language contact

Abstract

This chapter introduces the central issues and concepts in the fields of bilingualism, contact linguistics, and second language acquisition, with an eye to identifying generalizations and key distinctions. For example, although authors use terms like transfer, interference, bilinguals, etc., across fields, these sometimes have the same meaning and other times depend on the subfield of linguistics in which they are employed. While there is a good deal of overlap between these fields, the current chapter provides an overview of studies and findings related to these concepts in order to help orient the reader to the hypotheses, methodologies, and discussions contained in the present volume.

The second language development of past perfective forms in Spanish

“…Specifically, we expect that time of action will demonstrate change across levels, given previous research on study abroad and university Spanish learners that has shown learners to overselect or overallow the PP in temporally remote contexts at earlier levels or with less language experience compared to later levels (Zahler & Whatley 2023;McAlister 2019). However, we do not anticipate significant change in the other constraints analyzed in the current study: verb lexical aspect, sequencing, and presence of temporal adverb, given that these constraints show variable findings in previous research both abroad and in the university context (e.g., Zahler & Whatley 2023;Geeslin et al 2012;Geeslin et al 2015;Linford 2016;McAlister 2019;Terán 2020;Whatley 2013). Specifically, in Zahler and Whatley (2023), these constraints generally demonstrated the same direction of effect for learners, but only varied in whether they were significant.…”

“…However, they do coincide with previous research on preterit and PP variation that indicates that L2 Spanish learners overuse or overselect the PP form in typically preterit contexts, that is, those that are temporally bound in the past and separate from the present (e.g., yesterday, a week ago, a year ago). This overuse and selection of the PP in preterit contexts occurs in several previous studies on study abroad, which provide a snapshot of development, as well as in at-home research, some of which is crosssectional as a proxy for development (Zahler & Whatley 2023;Geeslin et al 2012;Kanwit et al 2015;McAlister 2019;Terán 2020). In the U.S. university context specifically, only McAlister (2019) and Terán (2020) have examined preterit and PP form variation.…”

“…This finding suggests that this constraint on past perfective form variation is one in which learners may demonstrate a lot of development in general, or is one to which they are particularly sensitive, potentially including outside the study abroad context. Additionally, in most studies, at the start of study abroad and often even after their time abroad, learners overselected the PP in contexts that are typically strongly favorable for preterit selection, such as with "a year ago" temporal reference (Zahler & Whatley 2023;Geeslin et al 2012), suggesting that this overselection is a typical developmental stage for the PP.…”

“…We subsequently coded each response for the four linguistic variables manipulated on the tasktime of action, verb lexical aspect, sequencing, and presence of a temporal adverbas well as for object plurality. Verb class was combined into telic predicates (achievement and accomplishment verbs) and atelic predicates (activities and states) in order to compare with previous research (e.g., Zahler & Whatley 2023;Geeslin et al 2012;Geeslin, Fafulas and Kanwit 2013;Terán 2020). We also coded each token for two participant characteristics: grammar test score (continuous) and course level.…”