This study tests the Bottleneck Hypothesis (BH) that functional morphology presents the greatest difficulty in second language acquisition by examining Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ knowledge of both functional morphological properties and core syntactic properties across three language proficiency levels. Specifically, this study compares Chinese EFL learners’ grasp of subject–verb agreement (a functional morphological property) vs. their grasp of the syntactic formation rules (properties) of WH-questions including WH-movement, WH-do-insertion (i.e. the insertion of the auxiliary do), and WH-do-inversion (subject–auxiliary inversion): three core syntactic transformation rules. Analyses of the experimental results using generalized mixed-effects models yield complex results that generally support the BH. While subject–verb agreement was found to be persistently more difficult than WH-movement and WH-do-inversion, it was shown to pose essentially the same level of difficulty as WH-do-insertion due to the fact that the latter also involves the application of the functional features of SV-agreement and tense, i.e. the high level of difficulty of WH-do-insertion likely lies in its accompanying application of functional features. Possible explanations for the complex results and their implications are discussed.
AdgerD (2002) Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Alemán-BañónJFiorentinoRGabrieleA (2014) Morphosyntactic processing in advanced L2 learners: An event related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research30: 275–306.
3.
Alemán BañónJMillerDRothmanJ (2017) Morphological variability in second language learners: An examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition43: 1509–36.
4.
BakerMC (2008) The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BarrDJLevyRScheepersCTilyHJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68: 255–78.
6.
BatesDMMaechlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (accessed September 2022).
7.
BorerH (1984) Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.
8.
ChenLShuHLiuYZhaoJLiP (2007) ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition10: 161–74.
9.
ChomskyN (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
ChomskyN (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
ChristiansenMHChaterN (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences5: 82–88.
12.
ChuangFYNesiH (2006) An analysis of formal errors in a corpus of L2 English produced by Chinese students. Corpora1: 251–71.
13.
ClahsenHHongU (1995) Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research11: 57–87.
14.
CunningsI (2017) Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition20: 659–78.
15.
DarusSChingKH (2009) Common errors in written English essays of form one Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences10: 242–53.
16.
DaviesM (2008– ) Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2018. Available at: https://corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed September 2022).
17.
DeKeyserR (2005) What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning55: 1–25.
18.
DeKeyserR (2007) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
EllisNC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
20.
EllisNC (2015) Implicit and explicit learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In: RebuschatP (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–24.
21.
EllisN (2016) Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition38: 341–51.
22.
EubankL (1994) Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In: HoekstraTSchwartzBD (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 369–88.
23.
FodorJ (1974) The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
FooteR (2011) Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics32: 187–220.
25.
GabrieleA (2009) Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition31: 371–402.
26.
GoldschneiderJMDeKeyserRM (2001) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning51: 1–50.
27.
GrassiMNuceraAZanolinE, et al. (2007) Performance comparison of Likert and Binary formats of SF-36 version 1.6 across ECRHS II adult populations. Value in Health10: 478–488.
28.
HawkinsRChanCYH (1997) The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research13: 187–226.
29.
HaznedarBSchwartzBD (1997) Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In: HughesEHughesMGreenhillA (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville. MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 257–68.
30.
HwangSHLardiereD (2013) Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second language Research29: 57–86.
31.
JensenINSlabakovaRWestergaardMLundquistB (2020) The Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 acquisition: L1 Norwegian learners’ knowledge of syntax and morphology in L2 English. Second Language Research36: 3–29.
32.
JiangN (2004) Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics25: 603–34.
33.
JuffsA (1996) Learnability and the lexicon: theories and second language acquisition research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
JuffsA (2005) The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research21: 121–51.
35.
JungYJ (2010) Syntax–phonology interface of WH-questions. Studies in generative grammar20: 549–76.
36.
KeatingG (2010) The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In: VanPattenBJegerskiJ (eds) Research in second language processing and parsing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–34.
37.
KrashenSD (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
KrashenS (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
39.
LardiereD (1998a) Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research14: 1–26.
40.
LardiereD (1998b) Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language Research14: 359–75.
41.
LardiereD (2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research25: 173–227.
42.
LeeJFK (2012) Teaching Hong Kong L2 learners WH-questions: Using a learning study approach. The Journal of Asia TEFL9: 171–97.
43.
LeeJFK (2016) ‘Why you can’t ask a proper question?’: The learning difficulties of Hong Kong ESL students. RELC Journal47: 295–311.
44.
LiuDGleasonJ (2002) The acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second language Acquisition24: 1–26.
45.
LiuYQiRDi BiaseB (2020) Cross-linguistic influence of L2 on L1 in late Chinese-English bilinguals: The case of subject realisation. Journal of Second Language Studies3: 290–315.
46.
Lopez-PregoBGabrieleA (2014) Examining the nature of morphological variability in native and non-native Spanish. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism4: 191–222.
47.
MadlenerK (2015) Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
48.
MartirosyanNMHwangEWanjohiR (2015) Impact of English proficiency on academic performance of international students. Journal of International Students5: 60–71.
49.
McLaughlinB (1987) Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
50.
MontrulS (2001) First-language-constrained variability in the second-language acquisition of argument structure-changing morphology with causative. Second Language Research17: 144–94.
51.
OdlinT (1989) Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
PackardJL (2000) The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
PrawatmuangWYuanB (2020) Roles of positive and indirect negative evidence in L2 feature reassembly. Journal of Second Language Studies3: 205–32.
54.
PrévostPWhiteL (2000) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research16: 103–33.
55.
RadfordA (2004) English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org (accessed September 2022).
57.
SlabakovaR (2006) Learnability in second language acquisition of semantics: A bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research22: 498–523.
58.
SlabakovaR (2008) Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
59.
SlabakovaR (2013) What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language: A generative perspective. In: García MayoMGutiérrez MangadoMMartínez-AdriánM (eds) Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 5–28.
60.
SlabakovaR (2016) Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
SlabakovaR (2019) The Bottleneck Hypothesis updated. In IoninTRispoliM (eds) Three streams of generative language acquisition research: Selected papers from the 7th meeting of generative approaches to language acquisition – North America, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 319–45.
62.
VainikkaAYoung-ScholtenM (1994) Direct access to X’-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In: HoekstraTSchwartzBD (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–316.
63.
WeiXChenBLiangLDunlapS (2015) Native language influence on the distributive effect in producing second language subject–verb agreement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology68: 2370–83.
64.
WhiteL (1991) Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research7: 133–61.
65.
WhiteL (2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
WhiteLJuffsA (1998) Constraints on wh-movement in two different contexts of non-native language acquisition: Competence and processing. In: FlynnSMartohardjonoGO’NeillW (eds) The generative study of second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 111–30.
67.
YangC (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
