Search from over 60,000 research works

Advanced Search

Aspect selection in adult L2 Spanish and the competing systems hypothesis: when pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict.

Full text not archived in this repository.
Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Rothman, J. (2008) Aspect selection in adult L2 Spanish and the competing systems hypothesis: when pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast, 8 (1). pp. 74-106. ISSN 1569-9897 doi: 10.1075/lic.8.1.05rot

Abstract/Summary

Native-like use of preterit and imperfect morphology in all contexts by English learners of L2 Spanish is the exception rather than the rule, even for successful learners. Nevertheless, recent research has demonstrated that advanced English learners of L2 Spanish attain a native-like morphosyntactic competence for the preterit/imperfect contrast, as evidenced by their native-like knowledge of associated semantic entailments (Goodin-Mayeda and Rothman 2007, Montrul and Slabakova 2003, Slabakova and Montrul 2003, Rothman and Iverson 2007). In addition to an L2 disassociation of morphology and syntax (e.g., Bruhn de Garavito 2003, Lardiere 1998, 2000, 2005, Prévost and White 1999, 2000, Schwartz 2003), I hypothesize that a system of learned pedagogical rules contributes to target-deviant L2 performance in this domain through the most advanced stages of L2 acquisition via its competition with the generative system. I call this hypothesis the Competing Systems Hypothesis. To test its predictions, I compare and contrast the use of the preterit and imperfect in two production tasks by native, tutored (classroom), and naturalistic learners of L2 Spanish.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/33089
Item Type Article
Refereed Yes
Divisions Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Clinical Language Sciences
Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Language and Cognition
Publisher John Benjamins
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar