Is the Suppliance of L2 Inflectional Morphology Subject to Covert Contrasts? An Analysis of the Production of L2 English Third Person Singular Agreement by L1 Bengali Speakers

Abstract

The cause(s) of missing inflectional morphology in obligatory contexts by adult speakers of second language (L2) English is subject to ongoing discussion. Whatever the specific theory, however, the apparent asymmetrical production of the morpheme ‘-s’ in the marking of number on plural nouns versus that on third person singular agreement has to be accounted for. This study adopts the theoretical approach put forward by the Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis, whereby the prosodic representation of inflectional morphology in the first language (L1) can, to some extent, account for differences in the suppliance of inflectional morphology in L2 English within and across L1s. It is in this context that the production of third person singular agreement, and, for contrastive purposes, number on plural nouns, by L1 Bengali speakers of L2 English, is considered in relation to available prosodic representation in the L1, as well as against phonological processes attested in L1 acquisition. More specifically, covert contrasts. An inspection of spectrograms from instances of the omission of inflection by L1 Bengali speakers of L2 English at Beginner to Intermediate proficiency levels does not, however, indicate that learners are covertly supplying agreement on the third person singular (or plural number on nouns). This finding does not necessarily rule out the occurrence of covert contrasts in L2 production of inflectional morphology; alternative techniques may detect a systematic difference between bare verbs and non-audible (to the listener) inflection.