Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:20:40.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE ROLE OF LINGUISTIC CONTEXTUAL FACTORS FOR MORPHOSYNTACTIC STABILIZATION IN HIGH-LEVEL L2 FRENCH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2012

Inge Bartning ,
Fanny Forsberg Lundell  and
Victorine Hancock
Inge Bartning*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Fanny Forsberg Lundell
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Victorine Hancock
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Inge Bartning, Department of French, Italian, and Classical Languages, Stockholm University, SE 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: inge.bartning@fraita.su.se.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to offer contextual linguistic explanations for morphosyntactic deviances (MSDs) in high-level second language (L2) French (30 nonnative speakers vs. 10 native speakers). It is hypothesized that the distribution of formulaic sequences (FSs) and the complexity of information structure will influence the occurrence of MSDs. The study reports that MSDs rarely occur within FSs, and if they do, they occur within sequences containing open slots for creative rule application. The rhematic part of the utterance attracts more MSDs due to the fact that this part is more syntactically complex than the preamble (the thematic part). An additional explanation is the mean length of the rhematic part, which is longer than the preamble and implies a higher processing load. A final explanation of MSD occurrence in the rheme is linked to the distribution of FSs in the information structure. The results are discussed in relation to the ongoing debate on the constructs of complexity, accuracy, and fluency—a promising area of study.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: High-Level L2 Acquisition, Learning, and Use , June 2012 , pp. 243 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 58, 249–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ågren, M. (2008). A la recherche de la morphologie silencieuse: Sur le développement en français L2 écrit [In search for silent morphology: On the development of written L2 French]. Études romanes de Lund, 84. Lund University.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. (2009). The advanced learner variety: 10 years later. In Labeau, E. & Myles, F. (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 11–40). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., Forsberg, F., & Hancock, V. (2009). Resources and obstacles in very advanced L2 French: Formulaic language, information structure and morphosyntax. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., & Hammarberg, B. (2007). The functions of a high-frequency collocation in native and learner discourse: The case of French c’est and Swedish det är. IRAL, 45, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., & Hancock, V. (in press). Morphosyntax and discourse at high levels of second language acquisition. In Hyltenstam, K. (Ed.), High level proficiency in second language use. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., & Kirchmeyer, N. (2003). Le développement de la compétence textuelle à travers les stades acquisitionnels en français L2 [The development of textual competence through the acquisitional stages of L2 French]. AILE, 19, 10–39.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement [Acquisitional sequences and developmental stages]. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 109–127). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2005). Native-likeness and non-native-likeness in L2A research. IRAL, 43, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56, 9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 133–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency over time: The case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies, 18, 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2005). Input in SLA: Adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 55, 79–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (1997). Relations entre grammaticalisation et conceptualisation et implications sur l’acquisition d’une langue étrangère [Relationships between grammaticalization and conceptualization and implications for the acquisition of a foreign language]. AILE, 9, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed faster than non-formulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and non-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. (2007). Cognitive processes as evidence of the idiom principle. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12, 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., Fant, L., Forsberg Lundell, F., & Denke, A. (2011). Nativelike selection in long-residency L2 users: A study of multiword structures in the speech of L2 English, French and Spanish. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62.Google Scholar
Forsberg, F. (2008). Le langage préfabriqué—formes, fonction et fréquences en français parlé L2 et L1 [Formulaic language—forms, function, and frequencies in spoken L2 and L1 French]. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Forsberg, F. (2010). Using conventional sequences in L2 French. IRAL, 48, 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F., Bartning, I., Engel, H., Gudmundsson, A., Hancock, V., & Lindqvist, C. (2012). A proposal of new advanced stages in high level L2 French. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Foucart, A., Carrasco, H., & Herschenson, J. (2009). Processing grammatical gender in French as a first and second language. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 76–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1992). From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left dislocation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2003). L’acquisition des categories fonctionnelles: Étude comparative du développement du DP français chez des enfants et des apprenants adultes [The acquisition of functional categories: A comparative study of the development of the DP in French by children and adult learners]. Études romanes de Lund, 67. Lund University.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Pacquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, V. (2007). Quelques éléments modaux dissociés dans le paragraphe oral dans des interviews en français L2 et L1 [Some dissociated modal elements in the oral paragraph in interviews in L2/L1 French]. Journal of French Language Studies, 17, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2004). The contribution of the theory of universal grammar to our understanding of the acquisition of French as a second language. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis.” Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J. (2006). Review article Français langue seconde: From functional categories to functionalist variation. Second Language Research, 22, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kemps, N., & Pierrard, M. (2009). The use of verb morphology of advanced L2 learners and native speakers of French. In Labeau, E. & Myles, F. (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 40–61). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M. (2005). The emergence of plus-que-parfait in advanced French interlanguage. In Dewaele, J.-M. (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 63–87). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native speakers: On the ultimate attainment of childhood L2 learners. In Harris, R. J. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 351–368). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (Ed.). (in press). High level proficiency in second language use. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I., & Fant, L. (2005). High level proficiency in second language use. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., Eltigi, M., & Mosette, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case of successful adult second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kihlstedt, M. (1998). La référence au passé dans le dialogue: Étude de l’acquisition de la temporalité chez des apprenants dits avancés de français [Reference to past time in dialogues: A study of the acquisition of temporality in so-called advanced learners of French]. Cahiers de la recherche, 6. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Labeau, E. (2009). An imperfect mastery: The acquisition of the functions of imparfait by Anglophone learners. In Labeau, E. & Myles, F. (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 63–90). Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labeau, E., & Myles, F. (Eds.). (2009). The advanced learner variety: The case of French. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M. (1997). En route vers le bilinguisme. AILE, 9, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M., Carroll, M., & von Stutterheim, C. (2003). La subordination dans les récits d’apprenants avancés francophones et germanophones de l’anglais [Subordination in advanced Francophone and Germanophone learners’ English narratives]. AILE, 19, 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardière, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Leclercq, P. (2009). The influence of L1 French on near-native French learners of English: The case of simultaneity. In Labeau, E. & Myles, F. (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 269–289). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Levelt, J. M. W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, J. (2008). Tur och ordning: Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik [Taking turns: An introduction to conversational grammar in Swedish]. Stockholm: Norstedt Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, M.-A., & Danon-Boileau, L. (1998). Grammaire de l’intonation: L’exemple du français [ The grammar of intonation: The example of French]. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2007). Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful profiles. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (2000). Introduction: Organizing principles of learner varieties. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 29–305.Google Scholar
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). Task based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing condition as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 130–151). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. (2003). Linguistic structure and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. EUROSLA Yearbook, 3, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Lambert, M. (2005). Crosslinguistic analysis of temporal perspectives in text production. In Hendriks, H. (Ed.), The structure of learner varieties (pp. 203–230). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Véronique, D. (Ed.). (2009). L’acquisition de la grammaire du français, langue étrangère [The acquisition of the grammar of French as a foreign language]. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Testing and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar