The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

How is inflectional morphology learned?

How is inflectional morphology learned?
How is inflectional morphology learned?
This article considers recent explanations of variability in the second language (L2) comprehension of inflectional morphology. The predictions of five accounts are spelled out: the emergentist account, the Feature Assembly Hypothesis, the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis, the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis. These predictions are checked against the results of an experimental study on the L2 acquisition of inflectional morphology (based on an extension of Slabakova and Gajdos 2008). English-native learners of German at beginning and intermediate proficiency levels took a multiple-choice test where they had to supply appropriate missing subjects. The predictions of the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis were largely supported by the experimental findings. It is argued that only accounts looking at mental representation of lexical features adequately explain L2 morphological variability.
1568-1491
56-75
Slabakova, Roumyana
1bda11ce-ce3d-4146-8ae3-4a486b6f5bde
Slabakova, Roumyana
1bda11ce-ce3d-4146-8ae3-4a486b6f5bde

Slabakova, Roumyana (2009) How is inflectional morphology learned? Eurosla Yearbook, 9, 56-75. (doi:10.1075/eurosla.9.05sla).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This article considers recent explanations of variability in the second language (L2) comprehension of inflectional morphology. The predictions of five accounts are spelled out: the emergentist account, the Feature Assembly Hypothesis, the Contextual Complexity Hypothesis, the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis. These predictions are checked against the results of an experimental study on the L2 acquisition of inflectional morphology (based on an extension of Slabakova and Gajdos 2008). English-native learners of German at beginning and intermediate proficiency levels took a multiple-choice test where they had to supply appropriate missing subjects. The predictions of the Morphological Underspecification Hypothesis and the Combinatorial Variability Hypothesis were largely supported by the experimental findings. It is argued that only accounts looking at mental representation of lexical features adequately explain L2 morphological variability.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 1 January 2009
Organisations: Modern Languages

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 353342
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/353342
ISSN: 1568-1491
PURE UUID: f7df6249-09de-44e5-a449-c757c08714a1
ORCID for Roumyana Slabakova: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5839-460X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Jun 2013 12:02
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:48

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×