Abstract
In this study we take a usage-based perspective on the analysis of data from the acquisition of verbal morphology by Norwegian adult learners of L2 Russian, as compared to children acquiring Russian as an L1. According to the usage-based theories, language learning is input-driven and frequency of occurrence of grammatical structures and lexical items in the input plays a key role in this process. We have analysed to what extent the acquisition and processing of Russian verbal morphology by children and adult L2 learners is dependent on the input factors, in particular on type and token frequencies. Our analysis of the L2 input based on the written material used in the instruction shows a different distribution of frequencies as compared to the target language at large. The results of the tests that elicited present tense forms of verbs belonging to four different inflectional classes (-AJ-, -A-, -I-, and -OVA-) have demonstrated that for both Russian children and L2 learners type frequency appears to be an important factor, influencing both correct stem recognition and generalisations. The results have also demonstrated token frequency effects. For L2 learners we observed also effects of formal instruction and greater reliance on morphological cues. In spite of the fact that L2 learners did not match completely any of the child groups, there are many similarities between L1 and L2 morphological processing, the main one being the role of frequency.
Highlights
In this study we take a usage-based perspective on the analysis of data from the acquisition of verbal morphology by Norwegian adult learners of L2 Russian, as compared to children acquiring Russian as an L1
In this study we explore the data from the acquisition of verbal morphology by adult L2 learners of Russian, as compared to children acquiring it as an L1
The L2 input has been analysed in three respects: 1) the explicit explanations on different inflectional patterns provided in the grammar books used by our L2 subjects; 2) the presentation of the present tense formation in the textbooks used in the instruction; 3) the distribution of the four verb classes in the L2 input, as well as correspondences in token frequency rates for the items that were included in the test
Summary
Similar table 1: Theoretical positions of different theories of L2 morphological processing. Medium/ Productive risová-t risúj-ut risúj-u table 2: Description of the four inflectional classes in Russian morphological complexity, as many verbs belonging to this inflectional pattern have consonant mutations and stress shifts in several present tense forms, but in contrast to the -A- class, the -I- class has high type frequency (Townsend 1975; Zaliznjak 1980; Slioussar 2003). The L2 input has been analysed in three respects: 1) the explicit explanations on different inflectional patterns provided in the grammar books used by our L2 subjects; 2) the presentation of the present tense formation in the textbooks used in the instruction; 3) the distribution of the four verb classes in the L2 input, as well as correspondences in token frequency rates for the items that were included in the test. Due to some inconsistencies found in the referred sources (Slioussar 2003; Gor 2004) the numbers here are approximations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
