Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism: Online-First Articles

Telicity judgments in L2 English by L1 Slovak speakers

The role of proficiency and exposure in telicity interpretations

ORCID logo | Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
ORCID logo | Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
The study investigates the acquisition of telicity in L2 English by L1 Slovak speakers as a function of L2 proficiency (measured by a cloze test score), exposure (operationalized as length of stay in an English-speaking country) and instruction type (monolingual vs. bilingual). Telicity judgments were collected from Slovak learners of L2 English (n = 50) and a control group of American English native speakers (n = 15) in two offline acceptability judgment tasks. Two types of telicity encoding were examined: (1) the contribution of the [±quantized] feature of the object argument to predicate telicity, which involves processes in narrow syntax; and (2) the contribution of adverbial modifiers to telicity interpretations, including coercion contexts, which involve processes of aspectual reinterpretation. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that the contribution of the [±quantized] feature of the object argument to predicate telicity, which is a syntactic phenomenon, will be easier to acquire than aspectual coercion by means of adverbial modifiers, which relies on pragmatic cues. The results indicate that the most significant predictor of telicity judgments based on syntactic cues is L2 proficiency, while length of stay affects telicity judgments in predicate categories involving coercion contexts.
Keywords: telicity, English, Slovak, L2 proficiency, L2 exposure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Telicity in English and in Slavic
    • 2.1The syntax of telicity in English and in Slavic
    • 2.2Telicity and adverbial modifiers in English and in Slavic
    • 2.3Interface identification and aspectual coercion
    • 2.4L2 acquisition of telicity
  • 3.Research questions and predictions
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1Context and participants
    • 4.2Materials and procedure
      • a.Proficiency cloze test
      • b.Acceptability judgment task 1
      • c.Acceptability judgment task 2
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Acceptability judgment task 1
    • 5.2Acceptability judgment task 2
    • 5.3The role of proficiency and exposure
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Declaration of conflicting interest
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Supplemental material
  • References
Published online: 2 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.21075.nad
References (49)
References
Alruwaili, R. (2014). Second language acquisition of aspect and tense by Saudi-Arabic learners of English. [Doctoral dissertation, University of York]. White Rose eThesis online. [URL]
Barr, D. (2019). Coding categorical predictor variables in factorial designs. [URL]
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, Ch., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68 1, 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999–0). [URL]
Bílý, M. (1986). Iterative verbs in West Slavic languages, especially in Czech. Slovo: Journal of Slavic Languages and Literatures, 32 1, 21–37.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto, & J. Runner (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, 17 1 (pp. 19–47). University of Massachusetts: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Cho, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). A feature-based contrastive approach to the L2 acquisition of specificity. Applied Linguistics, 38 (3), 318–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol 3 (pp. 104–131). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Approaching UG from below. Interfaces + recursion = language? In U. Sauerland, & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16 1, 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz, L., Bel, A., & Bekiou, K. (2008). Interpretable and uninterpretable features in the acquisition of Spanish past tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 432–452). Routledge.Google Scholar
Filip, H. (1993). Aspect, situation type and nominal reference. [Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley]. [URL]
(2003). Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11 (1), 55–101.Google Scholar
(2005). The telicity parameter revisited. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th semantics and linguistic theory conference (pp. 92–109). Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A., & Martohardjono, G. (2005). Investigating the role of transfer in the L2 acquisition of aspect. In L. Dekydspotter, R. A. Sprouse, & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th generative approaches to second laguage acquisition conference (pp. 96–110). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 1, 423–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaku, K. (2009). Acquisition of telicity in L2. A psycholinguistic study of Japanese learners of English. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa]. [URL]
Kardos, É. (2016). Telicity marking in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, Ch.J., & Neter, J. (2005). Applied linear statistical models. 5th edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). LmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models: R package version 2.0–20. [URL]
Lardiere, D. (2009). Feature assembly in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25 (2), 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leal, T. (2018). Methodological issues concerning proficiency in SLA research. In A. Gudmestad, & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 63–88). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leal, T., Slabakova, R., & Farmer, T. (2017). The fine-tuning of linguistic expectations over the course of L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (3), 493–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69 (1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J. E. (2006). The syntax of inner aspect. [Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University]. Linguistics Stony Brook: [URL]
(2008). The syntactic nature of inner aspect. A minimalist perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Inner aspect and phases. In K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments (pp. 207–230). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, R., Washburn, G., & Cornelius, E. T. (1981). American kernel lessons: Advanced student’s book. Longman.Google Scholar
Oravec, J., Bajzíková, E., & Furdík, J. (1994). Súčasný slovenský spisovný jazyk. Morfológia. (Modern Standard Slovak. Morphology). Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Cuza, A., Majzlanova, M., & Sánchez-Naranjo, J. (2008). Non-native recognition of the iterative and habitual meanings of Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 432–453). Routledge.Google Scholar
Piñango, M. N., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (4), 395–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Ramchand, G., & Svenonius, P. (2008). Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a univeral semantics. In M. T. Biberauer (Ed.), Limits of syntactic variation (pp. 219–245). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (3), 439–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, K. R. (2007). Case and aspect in Slavic. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R. (1997a). Zero acquisition: Second language acquisition of the parameter of aspect. [Doctoral dissertation, McGill University]. [URL]
(1997b). Bulgarian preverbs. Aspect in phrase structure. Linguistics, 35 1, 673–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38 (4), 739–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Recent research on the acquisition of aspect. Second Language Research, 18 (2), 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). What is so difficult about telicity marking in L2 Russian? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8 (1), 63–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Features or parameters: Which one makes second language acquisition easier, and more interesting to study? Second Language Research, 25 (2), 313–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, R., & Montrul, S. (2008). Aspectual shifts: Grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in L2 acquisition. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition (pp. 456–483). Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockall, L., Husband, M. E., & Beretta, A. (2010). The online composition of events. In Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics, 19 1, 1–32. London: Queen Mary College. Available at: [URL]
Travis, L. M. (2010). Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, M.-J. (2018). L1 influence on L2 English telicity judgments. In A. B. Bertolini, & M. J. Kaplan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 803–813). Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar