Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word Order at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 learners)

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper shows the need to triangulate different approaches in Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research to fully understand late bilinguals’ interlanguage grammars. Methodologically, we show how experimental and corpus data can be (and should be) triangulated by reporting on a corpus study (Lozano and Mendikoetxea in Biling Lang Cognit 13(4):475–497, 2010) and a new follow-up offline experiment investigating Subject–Verb inversion (Subject–Verb/Verb–Subject order) in L1 Spanish–L2 English (n = 417). Theoretically, we follow a recent line in psycholinguistic approaches to Bilingualism and SLA research (Interface Hypothesis, Sorace in Linguist Approaches Biling 1(1):1–33, 2011). It focuses on the interface between syntax and language-external modules of the mind/brain (syntax-discourse [end-focus principle] and syntax-phonology [end-weight principle]) as well as a language-internal interface (lexicon-syntax [unaccusative hypothesis]). We argue that it is precisely this multi-faceted interface approach (corpus and experimental data, core syntax and the interfaces, representational and processing models) that provides a deeper understanding of (i) the factors that favour inversion in L2 acquisition in particular and (ii) interlanguage grammars in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The biolinguistic perspective shifts the burden of computation to the interfaces, while still adopting the ‘modular view of learning’ found in the neurosciences: learning, or rather ‘growth’ as Chomsky (2005) calls it, is based on specialized mechanisms. Such shift from the first factor (genetic endowment/UG) to the third factor (principles external to the language faculty), emphasizes the interaction between language and other cognitive systems.

  2. It is widely acknowledged that the cognitive revolution in linguistics in the 1960s was a result of Chomsky’s mentalist approach (Chomsky 1957, 1959, 1965, 1980). Additionally, many SLA researchers have shown why the generative approach can be subsumed under the general ‘cognitive’ approach (cf. Hulstijn 2007; Johnson 2004). The two apparently opposing approaches to SLA (representational/generative vs. cognitive/usage-based) are rather a matter of the focus on the object of enquiry, and not of the object of enquiry itself (cognition).

  3. This debate is reminiscent of the classic ‘Fundamental Difference Hypothesis’ (Bley-Vroman 1989), which postulates that children make use of UG and language-specific processes to acquire their L1, while adult L2 learners make use of their L1 and, importantly, general cognitive/problem-solving mechanisms.

  4. While end-focus and end-weight tend to reinforce each other (focused elements tend to be phonologically heavy), end-focused subjects may be occasionally light (e.g., Along with the traffic congestion, comes pollution. [LOCNESS corpus alevels1.txt]).

  5. Regarding the interpretation of the 5-point scale, learners received the following instructions: On the next page you will see some English sentences. The first part of the sentence provides a bit of a context. The second sentence is the one you have to judge. Judging is very simple: 1 if you think that the structure of the sentence is not fine and 5 if you think it is fine. You can choose intermediate values, depending on your judgement. That is, the higher your score, the better the structure of the sentece. Remember: we are interested in your first reaction.

  6. ‘Appear’ was used as a verb of appearance (i.e., A new medicine appeared in 1980), and not with the sense of ‘seem’ (e.g., The problem appears to be difficult).

  7. In the LCR tradition, a common criticism of experimental L2 studies is that they involve a small number of subjects (see section “Gathering Data for SLA Purposes”). This is not true for our experiment.

  8. Departing from our corpus findings (Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010), we make a terminological distinction between ungrammatical vs structurally impossible sentences, which is relevant in learner language. A sentence like there exist many problems is both grammatical and structurally possible; there exists many problems is structurally possible but is ungrammatical due to lack of agreement between the verb and its postverbal subject; it exist(s) many problems is both structurally impossible and ungrammatical. It is often the case that learners’ sentences that are fine from a structural point of view but are ungrammatical due to other errors (e.g. agreement errors).

  9. A reviewer raises the question of whether the experimental stimulus it-exist-S might be rejected simply because of the perceived lack of agreement between it (which may, in a first syntactic parse, be interpreted at the subject) and the verb exist, as illustrated in (11a). A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc contrasts (all cases in all groups N = 417) shows that the rates given by all subjects to each of the it-unaccusative stimuli significantly differ from each other:

    $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{llll} &{}\quad it \hbox { exit} &{}\quad it \hbox { appear} &{}\quad it \hbox { begin}\\ it \hbox { appear} &{}\quad \hbox {t} = 19.7, p<0.01 &{}\quad &{} \\ it\hbox { begin} &{}\quad \hbox {t} = 17.7, p<0.01&{}\quad \hbox {t}=2.2, p=0.032 &{}\\ it \hbox { come} &{}\quad \hbox {t} = 13.9, p<0.01 &{}\quad \hbox {t}=7.4, p<0.01 &{}\quad \hbox {t} = 4.0, p<0.01\\ \end{array} \end{aligned}$$

    This indicates that each stimulus is behaving differently from each other, which is expected given that each unaccusative verb is not identical due to the fact that unaccusativity is not a uniform but rather a gradient phenomenon since each unaccusave verb is in a different position along the unaccusative hierarchy scale (see Sorace 2003; Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010 and references therein for a discussion). Therefore, there is in principle nothing unusual in the it-exist stimulus as opposed to the rest of the it-unaccusative stimuli.

  10. There is a correlation between unergative DR (PP vs *there/*it/*Ø) and proficiency score (r = 0.19, n = 367, p = 0.023), though it is not as significant as unaccusative DR. This entails that learners can better discriminate (un)acceptability with unaccusatives than with unergatives.

  11. Many studies (e.g., Phinney 1987; Tsimpli and Roussou 1991) support the idea that, for natives of null-subject languages, null expletive subjects are harder to expunge in L2 English than null referential subjects. Acceptability of null subjects in grammaticality judgment tasks appears to be higher than in production (Orfitelli and Grüter 2013).

References

  • Agathopoulou, E. (2014). Automatically arises the question whether...”: A corpus study of postverbal subjects in the Greek-English interlanguage. In N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou, & A. Sougari (Eds.), Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 168–184). London: Versita.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., & Häussler, J. (2010). Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(02), 273–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, T. K. (2006). Bilingualism. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 16–22). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D. S., Johansson, G., Leech, S. Conrad, & Finegan, E. (Eds.). (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of second language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Y. G., & Hakuta, K. (2006). Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 114–144). Oxford: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner english: The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Callies, M., & Paquot, M. (2015b). Learner corpus research: An interdisciplinary field on the move. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callies, M., & Paquot, M. (2015a). An interview with Yukio Tono. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of BF Skinner verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1980). On cognitive structures and their development. In N. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development, 7, 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, V. (2008). Linguistic contributions to bilingualism. In A. J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 245–264). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Mönnink, I. (2000). On the move: The mobility of constituents in the english noun phrase: A multi-method approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Negrillo, A., & Thompson, P. (2013). Learner corpora: Looking towards the future. In A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, L., & Arche, M. J. (2014). Subject inversion in non-native Spanish. Lingua, 145, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N. C., & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrandis, E. (2011). Crosslinguistic interference in the acquisition of overt expletives in L2 English: A corpus study. Madrid: Trabajo de DEA, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S. M., & Glew, M. (2008). Second language acquisition and bilingualism. In A. J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 265–294). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S. (2004). Computer learner corpus research: Current status and future propects. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus lingusitics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 123–146). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2002). International corpus of learner english. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English version 2. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gries, S. T. (2008). Corpus-based methods in analyses of second language acquisition data. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and SLA (pp. 406–431). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, L., & Guéron, J. (1999). English grammar: A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannay, M., & Martínez Caro, E. (2008). Thematic choice in the written English of advanced Spanish and Dutch learners. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 227–253). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19(4), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition. In L. Roberts, A. Gürel, S. Tatar, & L. Marti (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 7 (pp. 191–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based metodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. Binghamton, NY: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judy, T., & Rothman, J. (2010). From a superset to a subset grammar and the Semantic Compensation Hypothesis: Subject pronoun and anaphora resolution evidence in L2 English. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman, & L. L. Keil (Eds.), BUCDL 34: Proceedings of the 34th Boston University conference on language development (pp. 197–208). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the lexical semantics-syntax interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longa, V. M., & Lorenzo, G. (2008). What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition? Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 46(3), 541–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C. (forthcoming). The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

  • Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2013b). Learner corpora and second language acquisition: the design and collection of CEDEL2. In A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 65–100).

  • Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22(2), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr264oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp. 371–399). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C. (2016). Pragmatic principles in anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Advanced English learners of Spanish in the CEDEL2 corpus. In M. Alonso Ramos (Ed.), Spanish learner corpus research: Current trends and future perspectives (pp. 235–265). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.78.09loz.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C. (2017). The development of anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: Pronominal subjects in Greek learners of Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9541-8.

  • Lozano, C., & Callies, M. (2018). Word order and information structure in advanced SLA. In P. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: A corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 85–125). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2010). Interface conditions on postverbal subjects: A corpus study of L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2013a). Corpus and experimental data: Subjects in second language research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analysing language (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://childes.psy.cmu.edu

  • Mendikoetxea, A. (2014). Corpus-based research in second language Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 11–29). Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, F., & Littre, D. (2013). Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual “Corpus cum Experimental Data” approach. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montrul, S. (2011). Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua, 121(4), 591–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myles, F. (2005). Interlanguage corpora and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 21(4), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myles, F. (2007). Using electronic corpora in SLA research. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), Handbook of French applied linguistics (pp. 377–400). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 309–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orfitelli, R., & Grüter, T. (2013). Do null subjects really transfer? In J. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy, & D. Pascual y Cabo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (GASLA 2013) (pp. 145–154). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshita, H. (2004). Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and second language data. Second Language Research, 20(2), 95–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description and language teaching: Native and learner use of existential there. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phinney, M. (1987). The pro-drop parameter in second language acquisition. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 221–238). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, T. (2015). Learner corpora and grammar. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rollinson, P., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2010). Learner corpora and second language acquisition: Introducing WRICLE. In J. L. Bueno Alonso, D. Gonzáliz Álvarez, U. Kirsten Torrado, A. E. Martínez Insua, J. Pérez-Guerra, E. Rama Martínez, & R. Rodríguez Vazquez (Eds.), Analizar datos \(>\) Describir variación/analysing data \(>\) describing variation (pp. 1–12). Vigo: Universidade de Vigo (Servizo de Publicacións).

  • Ruíz de Zarobe, Y. (1998). El parámetro pro-drop y la adquisición del inglés como segunda lengua. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, June, 49–63.

  • Rutherford, W. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. M. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 163–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, W., & Thomas, M. (2001). The child language data exchange system in research on second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, C. (2015). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. Hamburg: LimeSurvey Project Team. Retrieved from http://www.limesurvey.org

  • Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selinker, L. (1991). Rediscovering interlanguage. Boston: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirai, Y., & Juffs, A. (2017). Introduction: Convergence and divergence in functional and formal approaches to SLA. Second Language Research, 33(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316681046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonovikj, A. (2011). Second language acquisition of unaccusative syntax: Macedonian and Spanish learners of L2 English. MA dissertation: University of Granada. Retrieved from http://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/20218

  • Slabakova, R., & Ivanov, I. (2011). A more careful look at the syntax-discourse interface. Lingua, 121(4), 637–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slabakova, R., Rothman, J., & Kempchinsky, P. (2011). Gradient competence at the syntax-discourse interface. In L. Roberts, G. Pallotti, & C. Bettoni (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 11 (pp. 218–243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In W. C. Ritchtie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 375–412). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A. (2003). Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations at the Syntax-Lexicon Interface (pp. 243–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 143–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A. (2010). Using magnitude estimation in developmental linguistic research. In E. Bloom & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition (pp. 57–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development and applications. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Corpus Linguistics Conference (pp. 800–809). UCREL, Lancaster University: UCREL.

  • Tracy-Ventura, N., & Myles, F. (2015). The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 58–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra.

  • Tsimpli, I.-M., & Roussou, A. (1991). Parameter-resetting in L2? In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 149–189).

  • Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2011). Second language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 121(4), 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). The use of web questionnaires in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Second Language Research, 26(1), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. M. Gass & J. Shachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been partly funded by Research Grant FFI2012-30755 funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Funding

This study was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Grant no. FFI2012-30755).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Amaya Mendikoetxea

  2. Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus de Cartuja, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Cristóbal Lozano

Authors
  1. Amaya Mendikoetxea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristóbal Lozano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristóbal Lozano.

Additional information

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the universities of Bremen 2015, Seville 2015, and Gothenburg 2012, INVAGRAM workshop 2014, AESLA 2012, CILC 2012, LCR 2011, EUROSLA 2011, ICAME 2011, AELINCO 2011.

Some issues in this paper are partly based on an earlier proceedings version (Lozano and Mendikoetxea 2013a), which was a short, preliminary and purely descriptive study. The current paper includes more participants and radically new information (theoretical approach, data, statistical analyses, results and discussions).

Appendix 1: Experimental AJT Stimuli

Appendix 1: Experimental AJT Stimuli

STIMULI (these were randomized in the online LimeSurvey AJT and the presentation format was as shown in the sentences in (9) above.

Unaccusatives

  • 1.   *it EXIST

    Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can easily get into difficult situations. But...

    ...I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

  • 2.   there EXIST

    Even though we live in a democratic country with plenty of opportunities...

    ...I believe that there exist unlucky people who are extremely poor.

  • 3.   *ø EXIST

    A lot of university students have recently complained about the ‘Bologna process’, but...

    ...some experts say that exist some students who support it.

  • 4.   PPloc EXIST

    Nowadays, it is very dangerous to walk alone at night in a big city...

    ...because in those cities exist many dangerous criminals who could kill you.

  • 5.   *it APPEAR

    Malaria is one of the most common infectious diseases. In the 1980s people were optimistic...

    ...because it appeared a new medicine that was effective against malaria.

  • 6.   there APPEAR

    Spain was not a democratic country for many years, but when democracy arrived...

    ...there appeared a great variety of new social problems.

  • 7.   *ø APPEAR

    Winter finishes around February or March and then the spring begins because the birds start singing...

    ...and appear the first flowers that grow in the gardens.

  • 8.   PPloc APPEAR

    Dictionaries often give an unusual definition of some words. For example, think about the word “cool”.

    ... In my dictionary appears a very interesting definition for this word.

  • 9.   *it BEGIN

    In 2004 there were some terrible terrorist attacks in Madrid. So, ...

    ... some politicians think that it began a new period in Spanish history.

  • 10.   there BEGIN

    In 1789 France was a country with a lot of poor people who were unhappy, ...

    ...so there began a new revolution called “The French Revolution”

  • 11.   *ø BEGIN

    Some historians believe that 1940 is a very important year ...

    ...because began a terrible war called the “Second World War”.

  • 12.   PPloc BEGIN

    In 1666 a small bakery burned in the centre of London by accident...

    ...and from this place began a great fire that destroyed the city.

  • 13.   *it COME

    In the 1970’s AIDS was an unknown illness. At the end of the 1980’s it was better known...

    ...but it came discrimination against people infected by the illness.

  • 14.   there COME

    The economic crisis in the 1970’s affected the financial markets first. Then it affected a lot of companies and business, ...

    ... so there came a dramatic increase of 45% in unemployment.

  • 15.   *ø COME

    The Industrial Revolution was a period between the 18th and the 19th century. Almost every aspect of human life was influenced ...

    ...and came many important changes in the life of people.

  • 16.   PPloc COME

    The house was very dirty. All the windows were closed, the rooms were dark....

    ...and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning oil.

    Unergatives

  • 17.   *it TALK

    Yesterday we were at school doing an exam. The teacher told us to be silent...

    ...but it talked a boy who complained about the exam questions.

  • 18.   *there TALK

    In a very important meeting about the world crisis, the world leaders were waiting for somebody to give a solution...

    ...so there talked the president of the United States.

  • 19.   *ø TALK

    I was at a funeral yesterday. Everybody got very emotional ...

    ...because talked the wife of the man who had died.

  • 20.   *PPloc TALK

    Tourists are always interested in visiting the Houses of Parliament in London ...

    ... because in that place talk the most important politicians of the United Kingdom.

  • 21.   *it WORK

    My American friend, Paul, thinks that in Spain people are very lazy and...

    ...that it work only the people who are very ambitious.

  • 22.   there WORK

    Nowadays, people think that teachers do not work too much, but the fact is that...

    ... there work only those teachers who are motivated.

  • 23.   *ø WORK

    The economic crisis is affecting everybody. A lot of workers are unemployed. The result is...

    ... that work only the people who have a stable job.

  • 24.   PPloc WORK

    The new building has a shopping centre and some offices. You can find the shopping centre on the ground floor, ...

    ... but on the top floor work the bosses of important companies like Microsoft.

  • 25.   *it PLAY

    After the Spanish civil war, the country was so poor that there were no toys for children, so...

    ...I think that it played only the children of people who were rich.

  • 26.   *there PLAY

    The manager of Real Madrid decided that the football match with Real Valladolid was not important...

    ...so there played only those football players who were very young.

  • 27.   *ø PLAY

    There was a basketball competition at school, but John could not participate...

    ...because played only the children who were 10 years old.

  • 28.   PPloc PLAY

    When I was at school, there was a special playing area, ...

    ...but in this area played only the boys and girls who behaved well.

  • 29.   *it SPEAK

    After several hours of discussion about work conditions, everybody thought the meeting had finished...

    ...but it spoke a very angry man who started shouting.

  • 30.   there SPEAK

    For a while, it seemed that nobody in the meeting was going to say anything about the corruption in the British Government...

    ...However, there spoke a woman with a very strong Irish accent.

  • 31.   *ø SPEAK

    In the conference several speakers talked about the economic crisis. They all met later for dinner ...

    ...and spoke the president of the Economic Society of America.

  • 32.   PPloc SPEAK

    It was a very big conference about medicine. Most talks were in rooms 1, 2 and 3, ...

    ... but in room 4 spoke a very important doctor from Oxford University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mendikoetxea, A., Lozano, C. From Corpora to Experiments: Methodological Triangulation in the Study of Word Order at the Interfaces in Adult Late Bilinguals (L2 learners). J Psycholinguist Res 47, 871–898 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9560-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9560-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation