Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages Introduction Extended Level Ordering Hypothesis orders English word-formation and inflectional morphemes at four levels with respect to phonological effects, semantic regularity and Productivity. According to its rule, the strong boundary separating the morphemes blocks the formation of non-compositional meaning (e. g., idiosyncratic words) as well as the operation of phonological rules of assimilation. Morphemes of English language which have a strong boundary are also productive. The weak boundary, on the other hand, allows the formation of noncompositional meaning (i. e., idiosyncratic words are formed) and phonological rules of assimilation apply. Such morphemes and word-formation rules are less productive in English language. Level 1: Class 1 derivation, irregular inflection, irregular plural forming compounds Level 2: Class 2 derivation Level 3: Root Compounding (prefix non-, zero derivation) Level 4: Regular inflection Level 4 involves inflectional morphemes which are considered to have the strongest boundary separating them from the word they attach. Level 3 involves root compounds. Allen, M. (1979) includes in Level 3 and the prefix non-, which has a strong boundary separating it from the word it attaches, a level stress, no assimilation by the word it attaches, and a completely compositional semantics. 1
Level 2 incorporates suffixes (e. g., Neutral suffixes) as well as Level 2 prefixes (e. g. re-, un-) which have a less strong a boundary separating them from the root they attach. Level 1’ incorporates suffixes (e. g., Non-neutral suffixes) and prefixes (e. g. sub-, de-, in-) which have a weak boundary separating them from the stem/word they attach. Kiparsky’s (1982) situates in this level and irregular plural forming compounds. Morphemes’ order stipulated by Extended Level Ordering, as we shall also demonstrate in this book, corresponds with the order morphemes and wordformation rules are acquired by English children. Inflection morphemes are acquired first by English children, and even before word-formation morphemes. Root compounds are also the complex words acquired early by preschool age English children (Anglin, 1993; Berko, 1958). Level 2 affixes (e. g., Neutral suffixes) are also acquired by English children during their preschool age (Tyler & Nagy, 1989); though less than compound words. Morphemes and word-formation rules belonging in Level 4 (e. g., Non-neutral suffixes) are acquired last. Though, Extended Level Ordering is not applicable in other languages. Root compounds have the strongest boundary separating the morphemes even in other languages, but, what differs is the degree of productivity root compounds own in other languages. Compounding is more productive than derivation in English language. In other languages, like Polish and Albanian, there is derivation which is more productive than compounding. Such difference in productivity transforms the order in which Polish and Albanian children acquire word-formation devices (i. e., compounding or derivation) of their L1. How are word-formation devices acquired in the second language acquisition? Heijden (1999, 138) maintains that bilingual children follow the same order as native children during their course of acquiring word-formation devices 2
(compounding or derivation) of their target languages. Hence, bilingual children acquiring English show a preference for compounding of English language, while, on the other hand, if their other language favors derivation over compounding (e. g., Polish language), they show a preference for derivation. On the other hand, adult L2 learners, regardless of their L1 and L2 Productivity, show a common preference for compound words of their target of language; preference which is due to the morphological clarity that compound words own over derived words (Prude, C. 1993, 71). The natural order of acquiring affixes also differs in L2 acquisition. Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000) tried to establish affixes’ acquisition order to Japan speaking English learners. They uphold that the factors responsible for the order are: “loan words, instruction, frequency of affixes, frequency of words that contain a particular affix, and the polyfunctional nature of affixes” (2000, 1). Obviously, the effect that ‘loan words’ have on the L2 affixes’ acquisition order is inconsistent with what Extended Level Ordering Hypothesis argues. Danilovic et. al., (2013) tested the order established by Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000). Testing Serbian speaking English learners, the authors conclude that the “order differed for Japanese and Serbian learners” (Danilovic. J. et. al., 2013). Both authors acknowledge that there is the L1 influence which affects affixes’ acquisition order to both Serbian and Japanese students. Displaying the key elements of L1 and L2 acquisition, O’Neill, R. (1998) assesses that acquiring L2 as children acquire their L1 is a “wishful thinking and… based on a profound misconception about the nature of L2 learning - just as it is a misconception about how L1 acquisition occurs”. Hereinafter, O’Neill, R. (1998) maintains that “the best way to explore the differences between the two processes is to view them side-by-side – in parallel”.
3
The focus of this book is to view side by side L1 and L2 acquisition of word-formation devices. Doing so, it explores the differences between L1 and L2 acquisition of word-formation devices, as well as displays the role cross-linguistic influence plays in L2 acquisition of word-formation devices. First chapter initially depicts the way word-formation devices are acquired in L1 acquisition. In accordance with what Extended Level Ordering suggests, there is argued that productivity enhances the Semantic Transparency of wordformation morphemes. The first chapter also presents the principles through which Cross-linguistic Influence affects L2 acquisition of word-formation devices to pre intermediate L2 learners: Orthographic and Phonological Overlap, and Morphological Translation Equivalence, as well as examine the way Cross-linguistic Influence intervenes in the acquisition of L2 Productivity to L2 learners, distracting L2 learners from the natural acquisition of L2 Productivity. The chapter also introduces the Dual Semantic Transparency Hypothesis in L2 Acquisition, which argues that the Semantic Transparency of L2 wordformation morphemes is enhanced by L2 itself (i. e., by Semantic Transparency, Formal Simplicity and Productivity degree they own in pupils’ L2), and, second, by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by the degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. This is also tested and the results are presented in Table 1. Productivity particular to the language children are acquiring affects the order in which native children acquire word-formation devices (compounding or derivation) of their L1. English children, whose L1 favors compounding over derivation, show a preference for compounding. On the other hand, Polish and Albanian children, whose L1 favors derivation over compounding, show a preference for derivation of their L1. 4
Therefore, first grade English children’s vocabulary is mainly composed of compound words. On the other hand, first grade Polish and Albanian children’s vocabulary is presumed to be mainly composed of derived words. The first objective of the second chapter is displaying Albanian pupils’ awareness of their L1 derivatives. Do they outperform their English counterparts as regards the knowledge of L1 derivatives? If Polish and Albanian pupils are more aware of their L1 derivatives than their English counterparts, they may acquire their L1 derivational morphology earlier compared to English children. Accordingly, the second objective of the second chapter is examining the derivational morphology English and Albanian pupils possess. Do Albanian pupils outperform their English counterparts as regards the knowledge of derivational morphology? Third Chapter examines the acquisition of derivational morphology by both pre intermediate and advanced L2 learners. Tests similar to those of Tyler & Nagy (1989) are conducted to L2 learners, and their results are compared with those of Tyler & Nagy (1989). The annual rate of vocabulary growth is high to early school age English children. From Anglin (1993, 62) data we may appraise that first to third grade children acquire 3,000 words per year, and that fourth to fifth grade children acquire 10,000 words per year. We may assess that the early school years mark a rapid development in English children’s vocabulary. There is word-formation knowledge which assists early school age English children in such rapid enlargement of their vocabulary (Fowler, et. al., 2003; Nagy & Anderson 1984; Nagy, 1984; White, et. al., 1989; Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Calculating the number of members for each word family present in the textbooks used in elementary schools, Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) expose that there are 6.88 members for each word family. Reasonably, Nagy (1988, 46) concludes that 5
“there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. Certainly such high vocabulary growth is of great interest in L2 acquisition, though, it has been estimated that only the most advanced L2 learners acquire 3,000 words a year. The fourth chapter offers suggestion over the way advanced L2 learners’ acquisition of word-formation devices of their target language may be improved. Doing so, the chapter uses inferences drawn from both L1 and L2 acquisition.
6