Search

Aims and Objectives: English allows inanimate objects to be sentence subjects (e.g., "The knife cut the bread") but Korean and Japanese restrict subjects of causal sentences on the basis of animacy. In previous work, we found that Korean speakers relaxed their native grammatical animacy constraint when immersed in English (e.g., found knives to be acceptable sentence subjects in Korean). We suggested this L2 influence occurred because the Korean animacy constraint does not map cleanly onto the semantic representation of animacy—some inanimate objects (e.g., "fire") can be subjects of causal sentences. In the current study, we further test this idea by examining the case of Japanese–English bilinguals. We predict that because the Japanese animacy constraint aligns well with the semantic representation of animacy, it will be less susceptible to L2 influence. Methodology: We first independently assessed the semantic representation of animacy by comparing animacy ratings from native speakers of Korean, Japanese, and English for 60 objects. We then asked Japanese–English bilinguals and Japanese monolinguals to provide grammaticality judgments for sentences that varied in subject animacy. Data and Analysis: We analyzed participants' animacy ratings and grammaticality judgments using mixed-effects models. Findings: Animacy ratings supported a closer correspondence between semantic representation of animacy and the grammatical animacy constraint for Japanese grammar than for Korean grammar. In contrast to previous results for Korean speakers, Japanese–English bilinguals' grammaticality judgments did not significantly differ from those of Japanese monolinguals. Originality: The current study is unique in that it suggests the vulnerability of structures at the syntax–semantics interface to L2 influence varies across different language groups based on the alignment between syntactic and semantic features. Implications: The current findings support the possibility that representations at the syntax–semantics interface may only be vulnerable to influence when syntax is incongruent with semantic features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Second language (L2) learners may have a “semantic accent,” using L2 words differently from a native speaker. The current studies investigate how learning conditions and the need to use different semantic dimensions may constrain the acquisition of L2 meanings.In Experiment 1, we asked whether first language (L1) Mandarin speakers would successfully learn English carry and hold with intensive input in a laboratory training procedure. In Experiment 2, we asked whether the difficulties observed were due to differing semantic dimensions per se or to the need to move from a larger number of fine-grained native distinctions to a smaller number of broader English meanings.Word definitions and label choice after training were scored for consistency with native performance.Experiment 1 supported the idea that intensive input helps, but Experiment 2 suggested that any kind of semantic difference from L1 is challenging even with intensive input.The current study clarifies the contributions of learning conditions and L1-L2 semantic differences in semantic accent.Reducing semantic accent may require instruction in specific L1-L2 differences and cultivation of metacognitive sensitivity to the potential for differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: This study contributes to understanding L2 word learning and why "semantic accent" persists. It examines the impact of L1–L2 semantic relations, input conditions, and L1–L2 dissimilarity on learning outcomes. Methodology: Mandarin-speaking learners of English labeled actions in 26 brief videos, typically called carrying or holding by native speakers. The labeling pattern is simpler in English than in Mandarin but requires a shift to different semantic dimensions. Further, hold is a higher frequency term than carry. The learners were resident in either China (N = 34) or the United States (N = 25), with somewhat higher proficiency in the US sample. Twenty native English speakers in the United States also responded. Data and analysis: Learner groups' name choices were compared to each other and those of native speakers. Findings/conclusions: The dissimilarity between Mandarin and English did not block importing L1 meanings to L2, but progress was seen across sub-groups. Input variables did impact progress: immersion (mediated by proficiency) was better than classroom learning, and use of the higher frequency term was greater than of the lower. Notably, however, many learners narrowed to domain-relevant vocabulary without using the words in native-like ways despite the simplicity of the target L2 system. They appeared to update knowledge at the level of word form-to-domain mappings without updating word form-to-meaning associations. Originality: Semantic accent has been documented previously, but the L2 word learning trajectory and factors that contribute to semantic accent have not been well understood. This study advances that understanding. Significance/implications: Imported meanings are difficult to reshape even for dissimilar languages and even with immersion. Enhanced learning may require sensitizing learners to L2 semantic content via either explicit instruction or intensive exposure to discrepancies between L1 and L2 meanings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]