Learnability in the acquisition of the English tough construction by L1-Korean adult and child L2 learners

Abstract

In the English tough construction (TC), knowledge of tough movement is necessary for target performance (the object-interpretation only; e.g. Johni is easy to see ei). The acquisition of the English TC raises a learnability problem for first-language (L1) Korean learners of English as a second language (L2): (1) Korean has no tough movement; (2) no input dictates that the ‘subject interpretation’ is disallowed in the English TC; and (3) no classroom instruction covers the English TC. According to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis, L2 children – but not L2 adults – can overcome this learnability problem. L1-Korean adult ( n = 49) and child ( n = 30) L2 learners’ (L2ers’) knowledge of the English TC was assessed via a truth-value judgment task manipulating (1) verb transitivity to make the infinitival object gap more vs. less salient and (2) context to avoid vs. strengthen bias toward the (erroneous) subject interpretation. Notably, some high-proficiency adult L2ers showed significantly above-chance performance, despite the error-inducing manipulations, suggesting that adult L2ers can overcome the learnability problem.

Second Language Acquisition of Pseudo-VP-Ellipsis and Gapping in Korean

“…Furthermore, knowledge of the grammaticality contrast involved in these constructions cannot come from L1 grammar or general learning principles, such as analogy, as discussed above. All in all, our findings are consistent with the possibility that a domain-specific mechanism is operative in L2 acquisition as in L1 acquisition (Kim & Schwartz, 2022;Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996).…”

Wanna contraction in first language acquisition, child second language acquisition, and adult second language acquisition

“…Furthermore, each sentence was presented twice (e.g., Deen et al, 2018) to allow the learners to fully process the structural information in it (Ferreira & Patson, 2007). This novel design might have made it possible to unveil knowledge in children, child L2ers with higher proficiency, and adult L2ers where previous studies failed to do so (see also Kim & Schwartz, 2022).…”

“…The two L2 groups differ in the age of their first exposure to English. The child L2ers were first exposed to English between ages 4 and 6, and the adult L2ers were first exposed to English between ages 8 and 12 (e.g., Kim & Schwartz, 2022). Note that the age of 7 was chosen as the cutoff age between the two L2 groups following Johnson and Newport (1989), who showed that children who begin L2 acquisition earlier than age 8 demonstrate target-like knowledge of various morphosyntactic phenomena.…”

Sensitivity to syntactic dependency formation in child second language processing: a study of numeral quantifiers in Korean

“…Although the issue of fundamental difference or similarity between L1 and L2 processing remains unresolved, Schwartz (2004, p. 64) proposed that the "L1 child-L2 child-L2 adult comparison" helps identify the "age-dependent difference in L2 ultimate attainment," by comparing proficiency-matched child and adult L2 learners with the same L1. Following this idea, several studies have compared child L2 learners with adult L2 learners and child L1 speakers, and yet they have primarily focused on offline comprehension (Kim & Schwartz, 2022;Unsworth, 2005). Although some studies have presented evidence of comparable processing capabilities between L1 and L2 children (e.g., Marinis, 2007;van Dijk et al, 2022), few studies have specifically investigated whether child L2 learners are fundamentally different from adult L2 learners and/or child L1 speakers in the domain of syntactic processing.…”