Deskribapena: We present data from the L2 acquisition of relative clauses with ambiguous antecedents and the L2 acquisition of Spanish N-N compounds with derivative suffixes in order to discuss whether and how these data should be taken into consideration for teacher training purposes and for the preparation of language teaching materials. We will argue that in spite of the fact that these constructions are not dealt with in the classroom, may not be frequent in the input or have a substantial degree of complexity, they provide the L2 researcher with invaluable information about native speakers’ intuitions. This can then be taken as a point of reference for determining the differences between: (i) the grammatical representation of the native and the non-native grammar in the mind of the speaker; (ii) the role of indirect input in second language acquisition and (iii) the way in which we can manipulate the input in order to make what Sapir called ’genius’ of the language explicit for both the native and the non-native speaker. In the case of relative clauses with ambiguous antecedents such as La hija del lingüista que vive en Creta (The daughter of the linguist who lives in Crete) either the “daughter” (the head Noun of the complex Noun Phrase) or the “linguist” (the modifier Noun of the complex Noun Phrase) can “live in Crete”. We will discuss the status of the so-called high attachment strategy (preference for “the daughter”) versus the so-called low attachment strategy (preference for “the linguist”) when there is actual ambiguity and when gender features force the choice of one of the two strategies. As for the relationship between compounding and derivation as in Mujercita araña (little spider woman) versus Mujer arañita (cute spider woman??? / little spider woman???), a topic that has neither been discussed by Spanish grammarians nor has been subject to psycholinguistic research, we will show that even though N-N compounding is not a very productive strategy in Spanish, it provides clear evidence as to whether or not derivational morphology has the same status as inflectional morphology in the native grammar.

Deskribapena: Language learning curricula often treat “grammar” as a stand-alone element of language, distinct from “meaning” or “context”. However, there are many cases where the intended meaning or context affects which grammatical form should be used. An obvious example—and one that we see in textbooks—is tense: if the speaker intends to express something that happened in the past, then in many languages past tense morphology is used. In this talk, I will highlight some less well known interactions of grammar and meaning, and I will argue that insights about these phenomena from theoretical linguistics can be informative for language teachers and language learners. The talk focuses on two case studies. The first involves the relationship between semantic negation and the indefinite form any in English. It is well known that any can be used in negated sentences, but teaching materials rarely show that that negation can arise semantically through the use of semantically negative words such as regret, and hardly, in addition to grammatical negation using not. The second case study involves verb-subject word order in Spanish. A determining factor in when to use verb-subject word order is the discourse-level notion of focus. Both case studies thus provide examples of grammar interacting with meaning or context. I report findings from second language acquisition research into both of these phenomena, and, finally, I explore some ways in which insights from such research could be incorporated into language teaching materials.

Deskribapena: This presentation will revisit the current theoretical models attempting to explain the developmental process of third language acquisition and the factors affecting it. There are currently three active models on the market, each with some empirical support. The critical research questions being debated are whether the L1 or the L2 structure has an effect when acquiring the L3 and whether the totality of the impacting grammar is transferred as an L3 initial stage. A further debate is whether transfer from a previously acquired language can be only facilitative, or it can be detrimental as well? I will review evidence for the current models and will propose a new approach called The Scalpel Model of L3 Acquisition. It has many features in common with another recently proposed model, the Linguistic Proximity model. Both these models essentially argue for L1 or L2 transfer, based on grammatical considerations or structural similarity, not necessarily typological similarity. They also argue for facilitative as well as harmful Transfer, and against wholesale transfer of the whole impacting grammar. I will discuss the implications of these theoretical approaches to acquisition in a language classroom. My discussion will be specifically focused on Basque-Spanish bilinguals acquiring English and other third languages.

Deskribapena: Relative amount of language exposure has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable predictor of bilingual children’s early vocabulary skills in each language. In this talk I will present work on bilingual children who are past the early stages of acquisition (6- to 10-year-olds). I will show that the relative amount of language exposure – operationalized as the language of the community – is a significant predictor of differences in bilingual children’s interpretation of aspects of language that require sophisticated morpho-syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic skills.

Deskribapena: In L2 research, it is agreed that learners must develop an implicit mental representation of language. However, there is debate as to how this implicit system develops. Of interest to the present discussion is what can be called the explicit/implicit debate: to what extent is explicit learning implicated in adult second language acquisition? The question has largely centered on formal properties of language, generally called “rules” and “forms.” Proponents for some role of explicit learning argue that learners (must) somehow engage explicit processes in extracting rules and forms from the input they are exposed to. Proponents for implicit learning argue that explicit processes are not engaged.