5 384958197913354986

Tense, aspect and mood in first and
second language acquisition

ahiers 24
C hronos
Collection dirigée par Carl Vetters (Université du Littoral – Côte d’Opale)
Directeur adjoint: Patrick Caudal (CNRS – Université Paris 7)
Comité de lecture: Anne-Marie Berthonneau (Université de Lille 3)

Andrée Borillo (Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail)
Anne Carlier (Université de Valenciennes)
Renaat Declerck (KULAK-Courtrai)
Walter De Mulder (Université d’Anvers)
Patrick Dendale (Université d’Anvers)
Ilse Depraetere (KUB - Bruxelles)
Dulcie Engel (University of Swansea)
Laurent Gosselin (Université de Rouen)
Florica Hrubara (Université Ovidius Constanta)
Emmanuelle Labeau (Aston University)
Véronique Lagae (Université de Valenciennes)
Sylvie Mellet (CNRS - Université de Nice)
Jacques Moeschler (Université de Genève)
Arie Molendijk (Université de Groningue)
Louis de Saussure (Université de Neuchâtel)
Catherine Schnedecker (Université de Metz)
Marleen Van Peteghem (Université de Lille 3)
Genoveva Puskas (Université de Genève)
Co Vet (Université de Groningue)
Carl Vetters (Université du Littoral - Côte d’Opale)
Svetlana Vogeleer (Institut Libre Marie Haps - Bruxelles)
Marcel Vuillaume (Université de Nice)
Ce volume est une réalisation de l’équipe de recherche “HLLI” - EA 4030

de l’Université du Littoral - Côte d’Opale.
Tense, aspect and mood in first and
second language acquisition
Edited by
Emmanuelle Labeau and Inès Saddour
Amsterdam - New York, NY 2012

Cover image: morgueFile
Cover design: Inge Baeten
Le papier sur lequel le présent ouvrage est imprimé remplit les

prescriptions de “ISO 9706:1994, Information et documentation -
Papier pour documents - Prescriptions pour la permanence”.
The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of

“ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for
documents - Requirements for permanence”.
ISBN: 978-90-420-3430-3
E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-0718-8
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2012
Printed in The Netherlands
Contents
Emmanuelle Labeau Introduction i-iv

Inès Saddour
Aviya Hacohen On the acquisition of compositional 1-25
telicity in Hebrew
Milena Kuehnast Acquisition of negative imperatives in 27-54
Bulgarian – implications for verbal
aspect
Yi-An Lin To spellout or not to spellout? That’s 55-72
the deficit
Olga Gupol The development of L1 Russian tense- 73-106
Susan Rothstein aspect morphology in Russian-Hebrew
Sharon Armon-Lotem sequential bilinguals
M. Rafael Salaberry Theoretical views on the development 107-129

of Spanish L2 knowledge about
iterativity and habituality
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig After process, then what? A 131-151
longitudinal investigation of the
progressive prototype in L2 English
Hyun-Jin Kim A case study of tense-aspect marking 153-177
by L2 learners of Korean
Evgeniya Sergeeva The acquisition of French verbal 179-200
Jean-Pierre Chevrot tenses by Russian adult learners: stem
alternation and frequency effect
Martin Howard From tense and aspect to modality: 201-223
The acquisition of future, conditional
and subjunctive morphology in L2
French. A preliminary study
Introduction
Emmanuelle LABEAU
Aston University
Inès SADDOUR
Aston University
Time after time… and aspect and mood
Over the last twenty five years, the study of time, aspect and – to a lesser
extent – mood acquisition has enjoyed increasing popularity and a constant
widening of its scope. In such a teeming field, what can be the contribution of
this book? We believe that it is unique in several respects. First, this volume
encompasses studies from different theoretical frameworks: functionalism vs
generativism or function-based vs form-based approaches. It also brings
together various sub-fields (first and second language acquisition, child and
adult acquisition, bilingualism) that tend to evolve in parallel rather than
learn from each other. A further originality is that it focuses on a wide range
of typologically different languages, and features less studied languages such
as Korean and Bulgarian. Finally, the book gathers some well-established
scholars, young researchers, and even research students, in a rich inter-
generational exchange, that ensures the survival but also the renewal and the
refreshment of the discipline.
The book at a glance
The first part of the volume is devoted to the study of child language
acquisition in monolingual, impaired and bilingual acquisition, while the
second part focuses on adult learners. In this section, we will provide an
overview of each chapter.
The first study by Aviya Hacohen explores the acquisition of composi-
tional telicity in Hebrew L1. Her psycholinguistic approach contributes
valuable data to refine theoretical accounts. Through an innovating
methodology, she gathers information from adults and children on the
influence of definiteness, number, and the mass vs countable distinction on
the constitution of a telic interpretation of the verb phrase. She notices that
the notion of definiteness is mastered by children as young as 10, while the
mass/count distinction does not appear before 10;7. However, this does not
entail an adult-like use of telicity. She therefore concludes that beyond
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): i-iv

ii Emmanuelle Labeau & Inès Saddour
definiteness and noun type, pragmatics may play an important role in the
derivation of Hebrew compositional telicity.
For the second chapter we move from a Semitic language to a Slavic
one. Milena Kuehnast focuses on the acquisition of negative imperatives in
Bulgarian, a form that presents the specificity of being grammatical only with
the imperfective form of the verb. The study examines how 40 Bulgarian
children distributed in two age-groups (15 between 2;11-3;11, and 25
between 4;00 and 5;00) develop with respect to the acquisition of
imperfective viewpoints, and the use of imperfective morphology. It shows
an evolution in the recourse to expression of force in the use of negative
imperatives, as well as the influence of morphological complexity on the
successful production of forms.
With Yi-An Lin’s study, we concentrate both on another type of
informant and of framework. Indeed, he studies the production of children
suffering from Specific Language Impairment (SLI), a developmental
language disorder the causes of which include cognitive impairment, psycho-
emotional disturbance, and motor-articulatory disorders. Using the Leonard
corpus in CLAN, Lin aims to test two competing accounts of SLI (the
Agreement and Tense Omission Model [ATOM] and his own Phonetic Form
Deficit Model [PFDM]) that conflicts on the role attributed to spellout in the
impairment. Spellout is the point at which the Computational System for
Human Language (CHL) passes over the most recently derived part of the
derivation to the interface components, Phonetic Form (PF) and Logical
Form (LF). ATOM claims that SLI sufferers have a deficit in their syntactic
representation while PFDM suggests that the problem only occurs at the
spellout level. After studying the corpus from the point of view of tense /
agreement marking, case marking, argument-movement and auxiliary
inversion, Lin finds further support for his model.
Olga Gupol, Susan Rohstein and Sharon Armon-Lotem’s chapter offers
a welcome bridge between child language acquisition and multilingualism.
Their study explores the influence of intensive exposure to L2 Hebrew on the
development of L1 Russian tense and aspect morphology through an elicited
narrative. Their informants are 40 Russian-Hebrew sequential bilingual
children distributed in two age groups 4;0 – 4;11 and 7;0 – 8;0. They come to
the conclusion that bilingual children anchor their narratives in perfective like
monolinguals. However, while aware of grammatical aspect, bilinguals lack
the full form-function mapping and tend to overgeneralize the imperfective
on the principles of simplicity (as imperfective are the least morphologically
marked forms), universality (as it covers more functions) and interference.
Rafael Salaberry opens the second section on foreign language learners.
In his contribution, he reflects on the difficulty L2 learners of Spanish
encounter when it comes to distinguishing between iterativity (conveyed with
the use of the preterite) and habituality (expressed through the imperfect). He
Introduction iii
examines in turn the theoretical views that see, on the one hand, habituality
as part of grammatical knowledge and iterativity as pragmatic knowledge,
and on the other hand both habituality and iterativity as grammatical
knowledge. He comes to the conclusion that the use of preterite as a default
past tense marker may explain the impoverished system of aspectual
distinctions, not only at beginners but also at advanced levels, which may
indicate that the system is differentially represented among L1 and L2
speakers. Acquiring the vast array of functions conveyed by a form is
therefore no mean feat, as confirmed by the next study.
Based on the prototype theory, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig’s chapter
focuses on the development of the progressive in L2 English. It opens with an
overview of the functions of the progressive in English. Then, a review of
acquisition research on the progressive in English and other languages is
provided. The bulk of the chapter reports on a longitudinal study of 16
learners of L2 English and shows how their use of the progressive expands
from the prototypical uses of process and continuousness to the less
prototypical uses of repetition and future. The study concludes that the
progressive spreads in interlanguage in accordance with prototype accounts.
However, it suggests additional stages, not predicted by the Aspect
Hypothesis, in the development from activities and accomplishments at least
for the meaning of repeatedness.
A similar theoretical framework is adopted in the following chapter, but
it deals with a lesser studied language. Hyun-Jin Kim revisits the claims of
the Aspect Hypothesis in relation to the acquisition of L2 Korean by two L1
English learners. Inspired by studies on L2 Japanese, she focuses on the
emergence and spread of the past / perfective marker –ess- and the
progressive – ko iss- in the interlanguage of her informants throughout their
third and fourth semesters of study. The data collected through six sessions of
conversational interviews and picture description tasks seem to support the
Aspect Hypothesis. Indeed learners show a strong association between past
tense and accomplishments / achievements at the start and a gradual
extension to other types; a limited use of past / perfective marker with states
and an affinity of progressive with activities / accomplishments and later
achievements. In addition, – ko iss– moves from progressive to resultative in
the specific category of Korean verbs meaning wear / carry.
While the previous contributions focus on function, Evgeniya Sergeeva
and Jean-Pierre Chevrot’s is interested in form. The authors explore the
acquisition of verbal morphology in L2 French by 30 instructed native
speakers of Russian distributed in a low and high levels. They use an
elicitation task for verbs with different models of stem alternation and study
how token frequency and base forms influence stem selection. The analysis
shows that frequency affects correct production, especially among learners
with high proficiency. As for substitution errors, it appears that forms with a
iv Emmanuelle Labeau & Inès Saddour
simple structure are systematically more frequent than the target form they
replace. When a complex form serves as a substitute, it is more frequent only
when it is replacing another complex form. As regards the use of base forms,
the 3rd person singular of the present – and to some extent the infinitive –
play this role in the corpus. The authors therefore conclude that the
processing of surface forms can be influenced positively or negatively by the
frequency of the target forms and of other competing stems, and by the
proximity of the target stem to a base form.
Finally, Martin Howard’s contribution takes up the challenge of
focusing on the poorer relation of the TAM system. On the basis of L2
French data obtained through sociolinguistic interviews, he studies the
expression of futurity, conditional and subjunctive in three groups of
university learners with classroom teaching only (two or three years of
university teaching) or with a mixture of classroom teaching and naturalistic
exposure (2 years at University + 1 year abroad). An analysis of relative
frequencies leads him to suggest a continuum of use going from futurate
present to conditional with past hypothetic conditional clauses in si, which
needs to be confirmed by further studies.
Acknowledgements
The present volume was inspired by the conference Acquisition of Tense –

Aspect – Mood in First and Second Language held on 9th and 10th February
2008 at Aston University (Birmingham, UK) where over 40 delegates from
four continents and over a dozen countries met for lively and enjoyable
discussions.
This collection of papers was double peer-reviewed by an international
scientific committee made of Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig (Indiana University),
Christine Bozier (Lund Universitet), Alex Housen (Vrije Universiteit
Brussel), Martin Howard (University College Cork), Florence Myles
(Newcastle University), Urszula Paprocka (Catholic University of Lublin),
†Clive Perdue (Université Paris 8), Michel Pierrard (Vrije Universiteit
Brussel), Rafael Salaberry (University of Texas at Austin), Suzanne Schlyter
(Lund Universitet), Richard Towell (Salford University), and Daniel
Véronique (Université d’Aix-en-Provence). We are very much indebted to
that scientific committee for their insightful input at each step of the project.
We are also thankful for the financial support of the Association for French
Language Studies through its workshop grant, and to the Aston Modern
Languages Research Foundation for funding the proofreading of the
manuscript.
On the acquisition of compositional telicity in Hebrew
Aviya Hacohen
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
1. Introduction
The linguistic importance of telicity is evident from the wealth of theoretical

literature on the topic (e.g. Vendler, 1967; Verkuyl, 1972; 1993; 2005 Dowty,
1979; Krifka, 1989; 1992; 1998; Tenny, 1994; Rothstein, 2004). The current
study provides a psycholinguistic contribution to the discussion. With
psycholinguistic data, from both adult and child language, it adds valuable
information and detail which refine the theoretical accounts.
Telicity is defined by two properties: endpoint and homogeneity. Telic
predicates are those that involve an inherent, natural endpoint, or
culmination. They are also non-homogeneous, or non-cumulative in Krifka's
(1992; 1998) terms, in the sense that one part of the event is not the same as
the whole event.
One diagnostic for telicity is the test of adverbial modification (e.g.
Dowty, 1979). As can be seen in (1), telic predicates may only be modified
by so-called 'frame' adverbials, such as in an hour, while atelic predicates are
only grammatical in the context of durational adverbs, such as for an hour:
(1) a. Sara ran a mile in an hour / *for an hour (telic)
b. Sara ran *in an hour / for an hour (atelic)
In Hebrew however, this test does not distinguish telic from atelic predicates:
(2) a. sara ratsa kilometer tox Sa'a / bemeSex Sa'a
Sara run-SG.F.PAST kilometer in hour / for hour
Sara ran a kilometer in an hour / for an hour
b. sara ratsa tox Sa'a / bemeSex Sa'a
Sara run-SG.F.PAST in hour / for hour
Sara ran in an hour / for an hour
Instead, one of the contexts that does distinguish telic and atelic predicates in
Hebrew is the modifier kim'at ('almost') (Smith, 1991):
(3) a. sara kima't tsav'a bad
Sara almost paint-3SG.F.PAST material
Sara almost painted material
b. sara kim'at tsav'a ribua
Sara almost paint-3SG.F.PAST square
Sara almost painted a square
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 1-25.

2 Aviya Hacohen
As can be seen above, (3a) has only one interpretation, namely, that Sara did
not paint at all. Conversely, (3b) is ambiguous: one reading is that Sara did
not paint at all, as in (3a), but it may also mean that Sara did start painting but
did not finish. This ambiguity is the result of the heterogeneous nature of telic
predicates as opposed to the homogeneity that characterizes atelic predicates
(cf. the next section): telic predicates involve both a process and a result
(Smith, 1991). Since kim'at ‘almost’ may modify either the process or the
result, the two possible readings above emerge.
Another diagnostic of telicity has been termed ‘the imperfective
paradox’ (Dowty, 1979). The examples in (4) illustrate the different
entailments associated with telic and atelic predicates when they are
generated in the progressive:
(4) a. John was painting material ⇒ John painted material

b. John was painting a square ≠> John painted a square
These examples show that the atelic predicate in (4a) entails the perfective,
while the telic predicate in (4b) does not. Though Hebrew does not encode
the progressive morphologically, using the inflected preposition beod
(‘while’) provides the desired context (Yitzhaki, 2003):
(5) a. be'odo melatef xatul hadelet niftexa
while-3SG.M stroke-3SG.M.PRES cat the-door open-3SG.F.PAST
While he was stroking a cat, the door opened
b. be'oda metsajeret igul haiparon niSbar
while-3SG.F draw-3SG.F.PRES circle the-pencil break-3SG.M.PAST
While she was drawing a circle, the pencil broke
Thus, the telic and the atelic predicates exhibit different behaviors: while the
sentence in (5a), using an atelic predicate, entails that the cat was stroked, the
sentence in (5b), containing a telic predicate, does not entail that a circle was
drawn.
Having shown this, let us now turn to a survey of the crosslinguistic
theoretical literature on compositional telicity.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Defining (compositional) telicity
As mentioned above, (a)telic predicates may be defined in terms of two

properties, namely endpoint and homogeneity.
Telic predicates, but not atelic ones, have a natural point at which the
event comes to an end, a culmination point. A telic predicate such as paint
the square is only true when the event it describes reaches its endpoint, the
point at which the square is painted in its entirety and the painting (of that
On the acquisition of compositional telicity in Hebrew 3
particular square) cannot go on. In other words, telic predicates have an

entailment of completion. The idea of the end-point as the defining element
of telicity is adopted, either explicitly or implicitly and under various titles, in
a wide range of theoretical literature (e.g. Verkuyl, 1972, 1993; Comrie,
1976; Dowty, 1979; Tenny, 1994; Depraetere, 1995; Krifka, 1998; Rothstein,
2004). In this work, I use the intuition behind the notion of the endpoint to
define telicity in terms of completion entailments (e.g. Verkuyl, 1993; Dowty
1979; Wagner, 1998; Winter, 2006).
In terms of the homogeneity criterion, it is claimed that atelic predicates
are homogeneous while telic ones are non-homogeneous (e.g. Vendler, 1967;
Dowty, 1979; ter Meulen, 1984; Krifka, 1998).
In Vendler’s terms, what distinguishes between verbs such as peel or
draw on the one hand and predicates such as peel a banana and draw a circle
on the other is that while a verb of the peel / draw type “goes on in time in a
homogeneous way; [such that] any part of the process is of the same nature as
the whole” (Vendler, 1967:101), the peel a banana / draw a circle type
predicates “proceed to a terminus which is logically necessary to their being
what they are” (ibid).
Homogeneity is related to the subinterval property of telic predicates
(e.g. Bennett & Partee, 1972 / 78; Krifka, 1998). For atelic predicates, such
as scatter popcorn, whenever they are true at a given time interval, they are
also true at any part (or subinterval) of that interval. This is not the case for
telic predicates such as draw a circle. The formal definition of homogeneity
is presented below (based on Bennett & Partee, 1972 / 78 and Borik, 2002):
(6) P is homogeneous iff ∀x, y(P(x) & (y ⊂ x) → P(y))
The definition in (6) states that a predicate P is homogeneous if and only if

for all intervals x and for all intervals y, if x is a P and y is a subinterval of x
then y is a P. So if we take the predicate spill the juice, if spill the juice is true
for time interval x, and y is a subinterval of time interval x, then scatter
popcorn will also be true of time interval y 1.
Telic predicates describe events that are perceived as gradually
progressing towards completion. In other words, events referred to by telic
predicates are those that are integrally associated with a point of culmination,
without which the event is not complete. From this it follows that for a telic
predicate to truthfully describe an event, the event must reach its natural
endpoint, or point of culmination. In other words, the entailment that arises
from telic predicates is that of completion. Thus, to paint the square entails to
1
This relationship between the part and whole events in telicity described here as
homogeneity, has been otherwise analyzed in terms of a homomorphic relation
existing between the event and the object (see Krifka, 1992).
4 Aviya Hacohen
paint the square completely (cf. Tenny, 1994). It is precisely this property of
telic predicates that will be tested in the experiments, as will be shown later.
Crucially, the notion of homogeneity refers to both the verbal and the
nominal part of the predicate. That is, the «homogeneity value», and
consequently the telicity value of the predicate is the result of the
combination of the properties of the verb and those of the direct object NP.
The view that the direct internal argument plays a crucial role in the
derivation of telicity is widely accepted in the theoretical literature (e.g.
Verkuyl, 1972; 2005; Dowty, 1979; Krifka, 1989; 1992; 1998; Tenny, 1994).
Specifically, the telicity value of the predicate is ultimately determined by
whether the direct object NP is quantized (e.g. Verkuyl, 1972, Krifka, 1989,
Tenny, 1994). Quantization is taken to be motivated by one of two nominal
properties of the direct object argument, namely, noun-type and/or
definiteness. These effects are illustrated by the Hebrew data below:
(7) a. litsboa bad (mass-atelic)
paint-INF material
To paint cloth
b. litsboa ribua (count-telic)
paint-INF square
To paint (a) square
(8) a. litsboa ribuim (indefinite-atelic)
paint-INF squares
To paint squares
b. litsboa et haribuim (definite-telic)
paint-INF ‘et’ the-squares
To paint the squares
c. litsboa et habad (definite mass-telic)
paint-INF ‘et’ the-material
To paint the material
As can be seen from the examples above, similarly to English, it is the nature
of the NP which determines the telicity value of the predicate. Specifically, a
quantized NP combined with an incremental dynamic verb derives a telic
predicate.
3. Previous acquisition studies
Over the past three decades, a number of studies have shown that
crosslinguistically, children’s initial use of the past tense is restricted to telic
predicates while the present or imperfective are used primarily with atelic
predicates (Bloom, Lifter & Hafitz, 1980; Shirai & Andersen, 1995 for
English; Bronckart & Sinclair, 1973 for French; Stephany, 1981 for Greek;
Antinucci & Miller, 1976 for Italian; Aksu-Koç, 1988 for Turkish; Berman,
1983 for Hebrew). This (production) pattern, which became known as the
Aspect First Hypothesis, has lead researchers to argue that tense morphology
in early child language serves to encode aspect.
The work of Angeliek van Hout (e.g. 1998) has provided important
comprehension data. Using the Truth Value Judgment task (Crain & McKee,
1985; Crain & Thornton, 1998), van Hout tested Dutch and English speaking
adults and typically developing (TD) children. Four verb-types were used:
intransitives, transitives with a bare object, particle verbs, and transitives with
an object preceded by a possessive pronoun. Two verbs were used, eat and
drink, and all items were presented as both complete and incomplete event-
types. Of most interest for the current study is the incomplete condition, and
in particular, items that include transitive verbs preceded by a possessive
pronoun. Sample excerpts from the Dutch and English protocols in the
transitive condition are presented below:
(9) [Dutch incomplete event]
EXP: Hier is een witte muis. Hij heeft een net stuk kaas gevonden. Kijk, hier is
hij aan het eten. Hij knabbelt er een beetje af, maar dit stuk is veel te
groot voor hem. Hij laat nog wat over voor later.
[English incomplete event]
EXP: Here’s a white mouse. He just found a piece of cheese. Look, here he’s
eating. He takes a couple of bites, but his cheese is too big for him for
now. He leaves a piece for later.
The story was accompanied by three pictures depicting the beginning of the
event, the event in progress, and the final result. Having heard the story
above, the subject is asked a yes / no question about the character. An
example of such a question is given in (10):
(10) Dutch: Heeft de witte muis zijn kaasje gegeten? Heeft de rode muis zijn
kaasje gegeten?
English: Did the white mouse eat his cheese? Did the red mouse eat his
cheese?
Three groups of 15 Dutch speaking children (3- 4- and 5-year olds) and one
group of 15 adults participated in the Dutch experiment. In the English
experiment there were 19 3-year-olds, 17 4-year-olds, 11 5-year-olds, and 16
adults, all of whom were speakers of American-English.
Van Hout found that Dutch speaking adults rejected the predicate 80%
of the time, which strongly indicates that this predicate has a completion
entailment in adult Dutch 2. Performance of 4- and 5-year-olds was at chance,
2
But note that these data are for only two predicates, eat cheese and drink coke,
which does not necessarily generalize over to other telic predicates.
6 Aviya Hacohen
and rejection rate of the youngest children was 20%. Rejection rate of
English speaking adults was only 25% and three child groups behaved at
chance. These results, particularly the adult data, go against the predictions,
and could ostensibly suggest that the telic / atelic distinction is not a
psychologically real phenomenon of adult English. However, it is quite clear
that this is not the case; rather, it seems that the surprising results are due to
flaws in the methodology. The first problem is in the choice of structure. The
possessive pronoun, zijn / his, rather than the definite article, yields a telic
reading in Dutch but not in English. Secondly, the choice of verbs: though
eat and drink are perhaps the most commonly used verbs in the theoretical
literature, psycholinguistic data, as well as results from my pilot studies, have
shown that adult speakers' judgments of the telicity value of predicates with
these verbs varies significantly (e.g. Ogiela, Casby and Schmitt, 2005).
Given that English speaking adults did not clearly reject predicted telic
predicates as descriptions of incomplete events, it follows that it is impossible
to say anything meaningful about the acquisition of compositional telicity in
English.
Based on van Hout’s (1998) experiment, Schulz & Penner (2002) tested
the acquisition of compositional telicity in German. Materials used in this
experiment were very similar to the ones used by van Hout: three picture-
sequences depicting an eating / drinking event accompanied by a story.
Following this presentation, the subject was asked two yes / no questions
about the event, one intransitive question and one question using a particle
verb or a transitive verb frame. The latter being the relevant one for my
purposes. An example of a transitive question is given below in (11):
(11) Hat das Mädchen den Apfel gegessen?
has the girl the apple eaten
Did the girl eat the apple?
Each subject was asked two such questions in the incomplete condition. One
group of 24 German-speaking adults and a group of 24 German-speaking
children aged 4;1-6;4 (mean 5;4) were tested. Results show that behavior of
both groups was very near chance (56% 'yes' response for adults and 52% for
children). Thus, as in van Hout’s study, the German experiment did not yield
the predicted results even for adult language.
More recently, Wagner & Carey (2003) argue that English-speaking
children aged 3-5 are sensitive to the telic / atelic distinction. The children
were asked to count how many times an event depicted in a film occurred,
Furthermore, van Hout (p.c.) reports that when she (and others) tried to replicate
this result, with similar versions of the experiment, rejection rates were much
lower, suggesting that the completion entailment was not nearly as strong as the
original experiment suggests.
the event description was either telic or atelic (e.g. paint a flower / paint).
Sample stimulus questions appear in (12).
(12) Telic description
How many times does the girl paint the flower?
Atelic description
How many times does the girl paint?
Children counted spatial-temporal events more often than adults in general.

When presented with telic descriptions, adults consistently (100%) counted
goal-defined events, while the children did so only 60% of the time. When
presented with atelic descriptions, both children and adults counted 20% of
the spatial-temporal events. Results show that English-speaking 3-5 year olds
are certainly sensitive to the telic distinction; however, they are clearly not
yet adultlike in the telic condition. Thus, to claim that English-speaking 3-5
year olds have mastered telicity would be too strong.
Additional relevant data, though from a slightly different perspective,
come from work by Slabakova (1999; 2000; 2001), who investigated
knowledge of telicity in L2 English. Slabakova investigated knowledge of
telicity in L2 English, comparing performance of low intermediate level L1
Bulgarian and L1 Spanish to native American- and British-English controls.
In an aspectual interpretation task, participants were asked to judge how well
two clauses in a complex sentence combine with each other. Test sentences
included combinations such as Antonia worked in a bakery and made a cake
versus Sharon worked in a bakery and made cakes. Since the first clause in
both sentences establishes a habitual reading, it was predicted that if the
participants could correctly interpret the telicity value of the two subsequent
clauses they would judge made cakes (=atelic clause) to be a better
combination than made a cake (=telic clause).
Similarly, in a stories task, participants read a story which clearly
established either a telic or an atelic context, as in (13) and (14) below. After
each story, two sentences were given and participants had to decided which
sentence best described the story. Just as before, the prediction was that if
participants correctly identify the story as either a telic or an atelic context,
they will be able to correctly match the sentence with the story.
(13) Samantha worked in a bakery. The bakery sold bread as well as cakes and
cookies. Samantha worked from early morning until late afternoon.
Samantha made a cake.
Samantha made cakes.
8 Aviya Hacohen
(14) Yesterday Julie got up early. It was her son's birthday. She usually liked to
surprise him for his birthday. She decided to surprise him with a birthday
cake.
Julie made a cake.
Julie made cakes.
Results from the aspectual interpretation task revealed that while Spanish
speakers demonstrated native-like knowledge of (a)telicity, Bulgarian
speakers did not. Interestingly, though, the Bulgarian group did perform
similarly to the other groups on the atelic sentences but not on the telic
sentences. Data from the stories task corroborated this finding, with the
Bulgarian learners showing significantly more inaccuracy on the telic stories
than the atelic ones. This effect was not found for the Spanish learners.
Thus, low intermediate level Spanish speaking learners of English were
highly accurate in their interpretation of (a)telicity in English, while L1
Bulgarians were only accurate with respect to atelic structures.
The current project aims to discover when Hebrew-speaking children
master telicity. The hypotheses and predictions which guide this study are
presented in the following section.
4. Hypotheses and predictions
Based on the theoretical literature on compositional telicity as laid out above,

it is hypothesized that in adult language
Hypothesis 1 Telic predicates (=incremental dynamic verb + quantized

object) are only true as descriptions of completed events
This hypothesis renders the prediction that
Prediction 1 Hebrew-speaking adults will reject telic predicates as

descriptions of incomplete events
It is further hypothesized that
Hypothesis 2 Atelic predicates (= incremental dynamic verb + non-

quantized object) are true as descriptions of completed and
incomplete events
This renders the prediction that
Prediction 2 Hebrew-speaking adults will accept atelic predicates as

descriptions of incomplete events
As for child language, recall that child results from van Hout (1998) and
Schulz & Penner (2002) are not very different from the adult data obtained.
This being the case, and taken together with the possible methodological
flaws of the experimental design, it would be wrong to base hypotheses and
predictions for TD Hebrew speaking children on those experiments. Instead,
based on the Aspect First Hypothesis, according to which the lexical-
semantic notion of telicity is present cross-linguistically from the initial
emergence of verbal forms, it is hypothesized that
Hypothesis 3 TD school-age children have adultlike knowledge of

compositional telicity
This hypothesis renders the following predictions:
Prediction 3 Hebrew-speaking school-age children will reject telic

predicates as descriptions of incomplete events
Prediction 4 Hebrew-speaking school-age children will accept atelic
predicates as descriptions of incomplete events
5. Experiment 1: Compositional telicity

5.1. Method
5.1.1. Design and procedure
In order to test the predictions above, I designed the following experiment

(inspired by van Hout, 1998), which is a variant of the Truth Value Judgment
task (Crain & McKee, 1985; Crain & Thornton, 1998). The experimental
design is presented in table 1. below.
As illustrated in the table, this is a 2x3 design, which renders the
following experimental conditions: 1) definite singular count, 2) indefinite
singular count, 3) definite plural, 4) indefinite plural, 5) definite mass, and 6)
indefinite mass. With 5 experimental items per condition and 16 unrelated
filler items, the experiment consists of 46 items. The verbs and the direct
objects were kept as constant as possible across conditions, so that the
different responses for each condition can not be accounted for by purely
lexical-semantic differences between the verbs 3. The shaded cells in the table
above contain the predicted telic predicates, and as such, they are expected to
be rejected as true descriptions of incomplete events. The predicted atelic
predicates, those in the non-shaded cells, are expected to be accepted as true
3
Though, naturally, it was not possible to have a perfect correlation, since not
many verbs allow all three NP types as the direct object argument. Specifically,
the mass condition seems to be the most restricted one in this context, and thus,
the verbs in the two mass conditions are quite different to those in the other four
conditions.
10 Aviya Hacohen
descriptions of the same incomplete events. The English translation of the

procedure is presented in (15).
Table 1: Experimental design
Definiteness
+ -
5 items 5 items
Singular Example: Example:
count litsboa et haribua litsboa ribua
color-INF 'et' the-square color-INF (a) square
5 items 5 items
NP type
Plural Example: Example:

count litsboa et haribuim litsboa ribuim
color-INF 'et' the-squares color-INF squares
5 items 5 items
Example: Example:
Mass
litsboa et habad litsboa bad
color-INF 'et' the-cloth color-INF cloth
8 items 8 items
Example: Example:
Fillers
lelatef xatul lelatef et haxatul
stroke-INF cat stroke-INF 'et' the-cat
(15) EXP: Hi [subject], I study at the university, and my teacher gave me

homework. She asked me to videotape people doing various things. So I
gathered round a few friends and family, and I told them to do all sorts of
things and I videotaped them. When I watched the videos I shot, I saw that
sometimes my friends did what I told them, but sometimes I'm not so sure
whether they did. So I need you to help me decide. OK?
Participant: yes
EXP: GOOD, so I have the list of the things my teacher asked for; before each
clip I will tell you what I told my friend to do, then we will watch the video
and then you will say what you think. I will write that down so that I don't
forget, because the clips where my friends didn't do what I told them will
need to be shot again.
Participants were then presented with video-clips showing the relevant events
and had to judge whether the accompanying (a)telic predicate, which was
orally expressed by the experimenter, matched the event or not. An example
from the definite singular count condition is given in (16) below:
(16) EXP: amarti letara litsboa et haribua

tell-1sg.past to-Tara paint-inf ‘et’ the-square
I told Tara to paint the square
(video-clip is played showing a girl starting to color in a square, but not

finishing)
EXP: tara asta ma Seamarti la?

Tara do-3SG.F.PAST what that-tell-1SG.PAST to-her
Did Tara do what I told her (to do)?
Target response: lo
no
It is important to note that the visual stimuli were kept constant across all
items in terms of “incompleteness” of the event depicted, while the telicity
value of the verbal stimuli was manipulated across conditions. In other
words, all the events depicted in the videos were incomplete, i.e. not reaching
their natural endpoint. The main reason for using only incomplete scenarios
is that it was important to have at least five different verbs in each condition,
so that a generalization could be made based on more than two verbs. In an
ideal situation, both the complete and the incomplete scenarios would have
been used; however, given the number of different predicates, and the fact
that I wanted all participants to judge all the predicates, having both complete
and incomplete counterparts for each predicate would have made the
experiment too repetitive and much too long. Furthermore, though using only
incomplete scenarios is clearly a compromise, it nevertheless provides the
two crucial contexts required for a psycholinguistic task, namely, acceptance
(when atelic predicates are used in the verbal stimulus) and rejection (when
telic predicates are used).
5.1.2. Participants
Two groups of monolingual Hebrew speakers were tested: 9 adults and 13

TD children aged 7;9–11;11. Clearly, the age range of the children is
relatively wide; however, a statistical analysis of the results revealed no
systematic difference between performances of the children in the various
ages. Given that within the child group, the age of the subject did not play a
12 Aviya Hacohen
role, the results of all the children were collapsed. Participants were recruited
from two kibbutzim, as well as a major city and the geographic area covered
the north and the south of Israel. All participants were tested individually by
the author.
5.2. Results and discussion
Rejections were coded as 0 and acceptance was coded as 1. Adult results are
presented in figure 1 below:
Figure 1. Acceptance rate of predicates as descriptions of incomplete events (adults)
100%
91%
87%
90% definite
80% indefinite
70%
acceptance rate
60%
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
11% 11%
10% 4%
0%
singular plural mass
NP TYPE
As predicted, the adults accepted (in)definite singular predicates as

descriptions of incomplete events only 11% of the time. Data from the
definite plural condition reveal that such predicates, which were predicted to
be telic, indeed have a very strong entailment of completion, with items of
this type accepted only 4% of the time. Interestingly, acceptance rates in the
definite mass condition, which were predicted to be similar to those in the
(in)definite singular and the definite plural condition, were surprisingly high
(27%) 4. Adult responses in the remaining two conditions were as predicted,
4
It is beyond the scope of the current paper to discuss this unexpected result, but
see Hacohen (in preparation) for a discussion of this issue.
with very high acceptance rates for both the indefinite plural (87%) and the
indefinite mass (91%). It is important to note that acceptance rates would
have been even higher (95% and 98% respectively) if not for one subject who
had exceptionally high rejection rates in these two conditions.
Child data are presented in Figure 2 and 3 below.
Figure 2. Acceptance rate of predicates as descriptions of incomplete events

(7;9 -11;11 year olds).
100%
90% definite
80% indefinite
70% 65%
62% 62%
acceptance rate
60%
50% 45%
40%
30% 26%
20%
20%
10%
0%
singular plural mass
NP TYPE
Let us first survey the conditions that were predicted to be telic, i.e. rejected.
As can be seen in Figure 2 above, the younger group had an acceptance rate
of 26% in the definite singular condition, and 20% in the indefinite singular.
In the definite plural condition, acceptance rate was 40% and in the definite
mass, these children had an acceptance rate of 62%. For the two atelic
conditions, namely the indefinite plural and the indefinite mass, acceptance
was at 62% and 65% respectively.
The main analysis involved Age Group (child, adult) as a between-
subject variable and Condition as a within-subject variable. A main effect
was found for Condition (F(5,100)=43.98, p<.0001) but not for Age Group
(F(1,20)=.72, p=.41). However, crucially, the 2-way interaction was
significant (F(5,100)=11.63, p<.0001).
A series of planned comparisons looked at the differences between the
age groups in each of the conditions separately. The difference between
14 Aviya Hacohen
children and adults was significant (or marginally significant, in one case) in
all conditions, except for the two singular count conditions. F(1,20)=1.82,
p=.19 for the definite singular count; F(1,20)=.95, p=.34 for the indefinite
singular count; F(1,20)=9.78, p<.01 for the definite plural, F(1,20)=3.91,
p=.06 for the indefinite plural; F(1,20)=5.68, p<.05 for the definite mass;
F(1,20)=5.74, p<.05 for the indefinite mass.
Finally, an analysis was conducted comparing predicates that were
predicted to be telic ((in)definite singular, definite plural and definite mass)
with those that were predicted to be atelic (indefinite plural and mass), across
the age groups. A main effect was found for Telicity (F(1,20)=207.94,
p<.0001), but not for Age Group (F(1,20)=.003, p=.96). Most importantly,
the 2-way interaction was significant (F(1,20)=52.56, p<.0001), showing
that the effect of Telicity was much greater for the adults than for the
children. The effect for the children was nonetheless clearly significant
(F(1,12)=50.00, p<.0001), revealing a sensitivity to the telicity value of the
verbal stimulus. In sum, data from this experiment confirm the predictions
for adult Hebrew, with subjects rarely accepting telic predicates as true
descriptions of incomplete events and regularly accepting atelic predicates as
descriptions of the same incomplete events. Furthermore, it was shown that
indeed definiteness and the mass / count distinction play a crucial role in the
derivation of telicity in adult Hebrew.
The predictions for child Hebrew were clearly not confirmed, as
Hebrew speaking school-age children evinced high acceptance rates for telic
predicates as descriptions of incomplete events, alongside a relatively low
acceptance rate for atelic predicates as descriptions of the same events. The
data do reveal that the children in this experiment were sensitive to the telic /
atelic distinction; however, it is very clear that Hebrew-speaking children are
non-adultlike in their knowledge of telicity even at the age of 12 5.
But what causes the children’s non-adultlike behavior? Data from the
current study showed that the two main factors determining the telicity value
of predicates in adult Hebrew are definiteness and noun type. It follows, then,
that in order to establish the source of the non-adultlike behavior on telicity,
each of these elements must be tested independently of telicity. This was
done using two auxiliary experiments, as described in the following two
sections.
5
In this sense, results of this experiment are comparable to what Wagner & Carey
(2003) found for (younger) English speaking children.
6. Experiment 2: Definiteness
6.1. Method
This experiment is a loose adaptation of a written Hebrew felicity judgment

questionnaire designed by Noga Balaban (p.c.) 6. In this experiment the
participant is orally presented with short stories, which are accompanied by
pictures depicting the key ingredients of the story. Each story ends with a
sentence containing a definite (direct object) NP. In the experimental
condition, the Definite Non-Unique condition, the definite NP has two
possible referents, while in the control condition, the Definite Unique
condition, the definite NP has only one potential referent. The experimental
condition includes 5 scenarios, and the control condition has 3 scenarios.
Together with 5 unrelated filler items, the total number of items is 13.
Sample items from each condition are presented below:
(17) a. Definite Non-Unique (overgeneration of definite determiner)
Ajelet rotsa litlot tmunot baxeder-Sena. hi Soelet et haSutafa Sela: at roa
tmunot basalon? haSutafa ona: ken, yeS kan tsilum exad veSnei tsijurim.
Ajelet omeret: tavii li bevakaSa et hatsijur.
Ayelet wants to hang pictures in the bedroom. She asks her roommate: ‘do
you see pictures in the living room?’ The roommate answers: ‘yes, there is a
photograph and two paintings.’ Ayelet says: ‘bring me the painting please.’
b. Definite Unique (appropriate use of definite determiner)

Dani mexin uga. hu Soel et Orit: at roa tapuxim bamekarer? Orit ona: ken,
jeS kan tapuax jarok vetapuax adom. Dani mevakeS: tavii li et hatapuax
hajarok.
Danny is making a cake. He asks Orit: ‘can you see apples in the fridge?’
Orit says: ‘yes, there’s a red apple and a green apple.’ Danny asks: ‘Bring
me the green apple.’
6
Balaban has been developing the original questionnaire as part of a larger
project, which investigates the pragmatic system of Hebrew speaking adults
suffering from brain damage to the right-hemisphere.
16 Aviya Hacohen
All items are pseudo-randomized and the procedure is as follows: the

experimenter presents the subject with the scenario, accompanying the oral
presentation with the corresponding pictures. The subject is subsequently
asked by the experimenter to judge whether the last sentence of the story
nishma beseder (‘sounds okay’).
6.1.2. Participants
Eight TD monolingual Hebrew speaking children aged 9;4 - 12;4 participated

in this study, five of whom also participated in the telicity experiment. A
group of six Hebrew-speaking adults served as controls. Participants were
recruited from two kibbutzim and the geographic area covered the north and
the south of Israel. The adult controls were all from the same kibbutz as the
majority of the children and all participants were tested individually by the
author.
Adult and child results are presented in Figure 3 below. As can be seen from
the graph, both adults and children rarely accepted the use of definite NPs in
non-unique contexts (10% and 15% respectively). Unique contexts always
licensed the use of definite NPs, with acceptance rates of 100% for all the
subjects.
Since no variability was found in the control condition, only the
experimental condition, the ‘Definite in non-unique’, was analyzed. No
significant difference was found between the age groups, F(12) =.48, p =.64.
Thus, data from this experiment revealed that 9-12 year old Hebrew-speaking
children have adultlike knowledge of the appropriate use of definiteness.
Once it was shown that definiteness cannot be the source of the non-adultlike
knowledge of compositional telicity, knowledge of the mass / count

distinction was tested.
Figure 3. Acceptance rate of (in)definite determiners in (non)-unique contexts.
100%
90% children
adults
80%
70%
acceptance rate
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Definite in non-unique Definite in unique
NP TYPE
7. Experiment 2: Definiteness
7.1. Method
Using Barner & Snedeker’s (2005) Quantity Judgment Task, five different
noun types were examined, using five experimental conditions: count nouns
(e.g. efronot ‘pencils’), substance-mass nouns (e.g. kemax ‘flour’), flexible-
count nouns (e.g. niyarot ‘papers’), flexible-mass nouns (e.g. niyar ‘paper’),
and object-mass nouns (e.g. do'ar ‘mail’). There were four items per
condition and 12 filler items, all randomly ordered. As illustrated in (18), for
each item, participants were presented with two characters, one with two
large objects and the other with five small objects of the same kind. The
smaller number of items always constituted the greater volume of material.
The verbal stimulus, lemi yesh yoter X? (‘who has more X?’), was the same
across items and items were all randomly arranged.
18 Aviya Hacohen
(18) Example items from each condition

a. Count
Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter efronot?

to-who there-is more pencils
Who has more pencils?
Expected target: lakowboy.
to-the-cowboy
The cowboy.
b. Mass
Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter kemax?

to-who there-is more flour
Who has more flour?
to-the-cowboy
The cowboy.
c. Flexible-count
Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter niyarot?

to-who there-is more papers
Who has more paper?
Expected target: lasayas.

to-the-horseman
The horseman.
d. Flexible-mass
Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter niyar?

to-who there-is more paper
Who has more paper?
to-the-cowboy
The cowboy.
e. Flexible-mass
Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter do'ar?

to-who there-is more mail
Who has more mail?
Expected target: lasayas.
to-the-horseman
The horseman.
It is important to note that, as can be seen from the examples above, in the
two flexible conditions (the flexible-count and the flexible-mass) the visual
stimulus remains constant while the verbal stimulus, i.e. count and mass
syntax, is manipulated.
7.1.2. Participants
Twenty-four TD monolingual Hebrew-speaking children aged 4;4-12;0

participated in this study, twelve of whom also participated in the telicity
experiment; and three also participated in the definiteness experiment as well.
20 Aviya Hacohen
Six Hebrew-speaking adults served as a control group. Just as in the previous

two experiments, participants were recruited from two kibbutzim and one
city and the geographic area covered the north and the south of Israel. The
adult controls were all from the same kibbutz as the majority of the children.
All participants were tested individually by the author.
The data were coded such that responses based on individuation, i.e. judging
the character with the larger number of items as having ‘more', were given a
score of 1. The opposite response, i.e. judging the character with the more
overall volume as having ‘more’, was given a score of 0. The results are
presented in Figure 4 below:
Figure 4. % of judgments based on number

100% 94%
90% count
flexible count
80% object mass
mass
70% flexible mass
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
11%
10%
0%
0%
4;4-6;1 7;9-10;3 10;7-12;0 Adults
AGE GROUP
As can be seen from the graph, adult Hebrew speakers behaved according to
the predictions. They always based their judgments on the number of
individual items in the two count conditions and in the object-mass condition
(at 100% for all three conditions). Conversely, they only very rarely based
their judgments on number in the two mass conditions (0% for the substance-
mass condition and 4% for the flexible-mass condition). In the child data, a
clear developmental pattern emerges. Children in the youngest age group
(4;4-6;1) usually based their judgments on number in all conditions,

constantly choosing the character with the larger number of items as having
“more”, regardless of the noun type in the stimuli. Sensitivity to noun type
begins to emerge with the 7;9 -10;3 year olds, who start to show a distinction
between the two count conditions and the object-mass on the one hand and
the two mass conditions on the other, basing their judgments on number
much more frequently in the two count and object-mass conditions than in
the two mass conditions. A further development is seen with the oldest group
(10;7 - 12;0), who evince a decrease in number-based judgments in the two
mass conditions, resulting in a sharper contrast between the two count and
object-mass conditions on the one hand and the two mass conditions on the
other.
The relevant distinction in the context of the telicity experiment, which
is the focus of this study, is the distinction between the count condition and
the substance-mass condition. On the count condition, even the youngest
children are adultlike, choosing the character with the largest number of
items 100% of the time, but this may reflect a bias towards counting. On the
substance-mass condition, children are clearly non-adultlike before the age of
7, nearly always basing their judgments on number. The analysis therefore
focused on the data from the two older age groups and the adults. Since there
was no variability in the count condition, only the mass condition was
analyzed. A 1-way ANOVA was conducted with Age Group as a between-
subject variable. The main effect of Age Group was significant (F(3,29) =
28.55, p <.001). Planned comparisons compared each of the children's group
means with the adults'. The two youngest age groups were significantly
different from the adults, t(26) = 7.92, p <.001, and t(26) = 2.87, p <.01,
respectively. No significant difference was found between the oldest
children's performance and the adults', t(26 ) =.93, p =.36.
Thus, the oldest children in this experiment were found to be adultlike
in their knowledge of the mass / count distinction, similarly to what was
found in the definiteness experiment. The implications of these results on the
telicity data and on the issue of compositional telicity in general are discussed
in the next section.
8. General discussion and concluding remarks
In this study I looked at compositional telicity in adult and child Hebrew. It

focused on the role of the direct object by keeping verbs as constant as
possible across conditions, while manipulating the two relevant nominal
properties of the internal argument, namely noun type and definiteness.
Results from this study provide important insights into the telic / atelic
distinction and into the crucial role of that the direct in the derivation of
telicity in adult language.
22 Aviya Hacohen
The acquisition data revealed that TD Hebrew-speaking children do not

have adultlike knowledge of telicity even at the age of 12. This is a surprising
result which contradicts the Aspect First Hypothesis, fundamentally
challenging its premise and predictions.
It is hard to draw any significant conclusions regarding the comparison
of the telicity results in the current study with the data reported by van Hout
(1998) and Schulz & Penner (2002), since, as described in section 3, adult
results for Dutch and German obtained by those studies were inconclusive.
There is therefore no point of reference with which to compare the Dutch and
German child data.
It does seem however, that the behavior of these Hebrew-speaking
children is comparable to what Wagner & Cary (2003) found for much
younger English acquiring children, as mentioned in footnote 5. Furthermore,
insofar as one can compare L1 and L2 acquisition, it seems that the children
in the current study are at the same stage of acquisition as the Bulgarian
learners of English from Slabakova’s (1999; 2000; 2001) studies.
Adult Hebrew data from the telicity experiment indicated that noun-type
and definiteness were crucial for the derivation of adult Hebrew telicity. It
logically follows that immature knowledge of either the mass / count
distinction or definiteness will affect performance on the telicity task. This is
precisely what experiments 2 and 3 set out to test.
Using these two additional experiments to independently test knowledge
of definiteness and the mass / count distinction, it was found that some of the
children, particularly the oldest ones, evinced adultlike knowledge of the
appropriate use of the definite determiner and of the mass / count distinction,
while simultaneously performing very differently from the adults in the
telicity task.
Based on this, it was argued that the acquisition pattern of (Hebrew)
compositional telicity is as follows: the child initially masters the appropriate
use of definiteness, at least as early as age 10. Later, and not before age 10;7,
he/she acquires the mass / count distinction.
Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, these acquisition data
are particularly pertinent to the question of the role of the direct object in the
derivation of telicity and for the discussion of the syntax / semantics of
telicity in adult language. These are precisely the data required to shed light
on the issue of the exact contribution of the direct object to compositional
telicity.
Since no correlation was found between (non-adultlike) knowledge of
telicity on the one hand and (adultlike) knowledge of the mass / count
distinction and definiteness on the other, this provides support for the view
that mastery of (a)telicity does not naturally follows from knowledge of
definiteness and the mass / count distinction. Rather, it strongly suggests that
knowledge of compositional telicity is not simply a natural consequence of
combining knowledge of definiteness and the mass / count distinction. In

other words, it is not the case that once the child has acquired definiteness
and the mass / count distinction, mastery of telicity “comes for free”.
Thus, these data provide empirical support for the claim that the direct
object, and specifically, definiteness and noun type, are not the sole
contributors to the derivation of telicity. In particular, taken together with the
variability found for the adults on the telicity task, results from this study
suggest that pragmatics may be playing an important role in the derivation of
(Hebrew) compositional telicity. The precise nature of the pragmatic
processes involved is left for future research.
References
Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The Acquisistion of Aspect and modality: The Case of

Past Reference in Turkish, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Antinucci, F.; Miller, R. (1976). How children talk about what happened,
Journal of Child Language 3: 169-189.
Barner, D.; Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation:
Evidence that mass nouns count, Cognition 97: 41-66.
Bennett, M; Partee, B. (1972 / 78). Toward the logic of Tense and Aspect in
English, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Berman, R. (1983). Establishing Schema: Children’s Construals of Verb-
Tense Marking, Language Sciences 5: 61-78.
Bloom, L.; Lifter, K.; Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and development
of verb inflection in child language, Language 56: 386-412.
Borik, O. (2002). Aspect and Reference time, unpublished PhD dissertation,
Utrecht University.
Bronckart, J.; Sinclair, H. (1973). Time, tense and aspect, Cognition 2: 107-
130.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and
Related Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crain, S.; McKee, C. (1985). The acquisition of structural restrictions on
anaphora, in: S. Berman; J.-W. Choe; J. McDonough (eds), Proceedings
of NELS 15 (North East Linguistic Society), Amherst: University of
Massachusetts.
Crain, S.; Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A
Guide to Experiments in the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Depraetere, I. (1995). On the Necessity of Distinguishing between
(Un)boundedness and (A)telicity, Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1-19.
Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht:
Reidel.
24 Aviya Hacohen
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and

quantification in event semantics, in: R. Bartsch; J. van Bentham; P. van
Emde Boas (eds), Semantics and Contextual Expressions, Dordrecht:
Foris, 75-115.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference
and temporal constitution, in: I. Sag; A. Szabolcsi (eds), Lexical
matters, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 29-54.
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity, in: S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and
Grammar, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 197-236.
Ogiela, D.; Casby, M.; Schmitt, C. (2005). Interpretation of VP telicity in
adults and typically developing children, paper presented at the 10th
meeting of the International Association for the study of Child
Language (IASCL).
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: a study in the semantics of lexical
aspect, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schulz, P.; Penner, Z. (2002). How you can eat the apple and have it too:
Evidence from the acquisition of telicity in German, in: J. Costa; M.J.
Freitas (eds), Proceedings of GALA 2001 (Generative Approaches to
Language Acquisition), University of Lisbon, 239-246.
Shirai, Y.; Andersen, R.W. (1995). The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect
Morphology: A Prototype Account, Language 71: 743-762.
Slabakova, R. (1999). Evidence of Transfer: L2 Acquisition of Telicity in
English by Spanish and Slavic Native Speakers, In Proceedings of the
Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition conference
(GASLA 1998), University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon
University.
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 Transfer Revisited: The L2 Acquisition of Telicity
Marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian Native Speakers,
Linguistics 38(4): 739-770.
Slabakova, R. (2001). Telicity in the second language, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Smith, C. (1991). The Parameter of Aspect, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stephany, U. (1981). Verbal grammar in Modern Greek early child language,
in: P. S. Dale; D. Ingram (eds), Child language: An international
Perspective, Baltimore, MD: University Park Press, 45-57.
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface,
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
ter Meulen, A. (1984). Events, quantities and individuals, in: F. Landman; F.
Veltman (eds), Varieties of formal semantics, Dordrecht: Foris, 259-
280.
van Hout, A. (1998). On the role of direct objects and particles in learning
telicity in Dutch and English, in: A. Greenhill; M. Hughes; H.
Littlefield; H. Walsh (eds), Proceedings of BUCLD 22 (Boston
University Conference on Language Development), Somerville:

Cascadilla Press, 397-408.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy, Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects,
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between
temporal and atemporal structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Verkuyl, H.J. (2005). Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients, in:
H. Verkuyl; H. de Swart; A. van Hout (eds), Perspectives on Aspect.
Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Volume 32, Dordrecht:
Springer, 19-39.
Wagner, L. (1998). The semantics and acquisition of time in language,
unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Wagner, L.; Carey, S. (2003). Individuation of Objects and Events: A
Developmental Study, Cognition 90(2): 163-191.
Winter, Y. (2006). Closure and telicity across categories, in: M. Gibson; J.
Howell (eds), Proceedings of SALT XVI, New York: Cornell University.
Yitzhaki, D. (2003). The Semantics of Lexical Aspect in Modern Hebrew,
unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University.
Acquisition of negative imperatives in Bulgarian –
implications for verbal aspect
Milena KUEHNAST
Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin
1. Introduction 1
Bulgarian is a Slavic language which overtly expresses highly complex

aspectual and temporal relations. Bulgarian features the Slavic type of
morphologically marked verbal aspect represented in the paradigms of
perfective and imperfective verbs. In contrast to other Slavic languages,
Bulgarian has preserved an exceptionally rich tense system 2. Temporal
(un)boundedness is encoded in the opposition between Aorist and Imperfect
as well as within the paradigm of the resultative tenses between Perfect and
Past Perfect.
An important property of Bulgarian is the emphasis on the imperfective
pole of aspectual categorisation. While some languages concentrate on the
overt marking of perfective meanings like telicity and boundedness, the
system of tense, aspect and modality (TAM) in Bulgarian upholds the
equilibrium between the morpho-syntactic means expressing perfective and
imperfective viewpoints. At the level of verbal aspect, the derivation of
imperfective counterparts from perfective verbs known as imperfectivisation
has achieved the highest degree of application among the Slavic languages.
In Bulgarian, every perfective verb, be it simple or derived, has an
imperfective counterpart forming a true aspectual pair. Imperfectivised verbs
preserve the boundedness of the perfective counterparts and their syntactic
properties, but shift the viewpoint to the event. As a result, imperfectivised
verbs express ongoing processes while indicating their potential boundaries 3.
1
I’m grateful to Emmanuelle Labeau and two anonymous reviewers for their
suggestions and insightful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
2
Bulgarian grammar books identify 9 tenses (possible with both aspects), 3 of
which are expressed synthetically and 6 analytically. See Bojadzhiev et al.
(1999) for a systematic description. For a brief comparison with the tense
systems of the other Slavic languages, see Sussex & Cubberley (2006:242ff.).
3
In Bulgarian, imperfectivisation is a grammaticalised means for the expression
of historical present. See S.Guentcheva’s (1981) interval-based explanation for
the retained processual meaning and the actual present uses of imperfectivised
verbs of different derivational types.

28 Milena Kuehnast
Given the richness of aspectual morphological forms overtly marking

the relevant aspectual features and their specific combinations, questions
about the time course of their acquisition by children acquiring Bulgarian as a
native language come to the fore. In this study we want to shed light on the
acquisition of forms and functions of imperfective morphology at the level of
verbal aspect, which is understood as a predication frame including the verb
and its arguments. We will argue that target-like use of imperfective
morphology reflects the ability to establish an internal viewpoint to telic
eventualities. Investigating different types of situation descriptions, we show
that the acquisition of finer perspective shifts required in two-states achieve-
ment verbs present the children with some challenges up to the age of five.
In order to abstract from temporal boundedness associated with past
tenses, we conducted an experimental study on the acquisition of negative
imperatives in Bulgarian. Negative imperatives present an excellent testing
ground for testing developmental hypotheses on two basic assumptions.
Imperatives are among the constructions acquired early by children. Essential
for the articulation of requests as one of the basic communicative functions,
imperatives are less complex forms with respect to the number and
complexity of verbal categories they express. The second assumption is
based on a language specific property of Bulgarian negative imperatives
which is relevant to the study of imperfective markers. Bulgarian features
negative imperative constructions (NI) with a genuine verbal imperative
inflection which is grammatical only with imperfective verbs 4. NI present a
case of morphologically overt aspectual coercion (Moens & Steedman 1988),
due to the morpho-syntactic properties of the Bulgarian TAM system which
puts emphasis on the overt expression of imperfectivity.
The present experimental study on the acquisition of negative
imperatives investigates how Bulgarian children combine elements of
modality, negation and situation description in order to arrive at the target
aspectual interpretation. The production data also allows inferences about-
age related changes of children's ability to look at the internal structure of
eventualities and to mark the perspective they take using the language-
specific means. While children successfully master different facets of deontic
modality employing various syntactic constructions, they still show some
deviation from adult speakers with respect to the representation and overt
marking of an inner perspective to a telic situation. The results obtained are
4
The absolute ungrammaticality of synthetic NI with perfective verbs in
Bulgarian is employed as a test for the aspectual value of a verb (Bojadzhiev et
al. 1999:490). In other Slavic languages, the aspect of the verb produces two
different interpretations of NI – a prohibitive one with imperfective verbs and a
preventive one with perfective verbs (cf. Chrakovskij & Volodin 1986).
Acquisition of negative imperatives in Bulgarian 29
discussed with respect to current research on the acquisition of imperfective

aspect.
2. What is in a Bulgarian negative imperative?
According to traditional definitions (Lyons 1977: 792) deontic modality

represents a specific relation between speaker and addressee in which the
speaker is in a position of authority and thus able to impose requirements on
the addressee and to expect that these are fulfilled by the addressee.
Bulgarian expresses deontic modality synthetically by means of verbal
imperative inflection (1), or analytically in constructions containing modal
elements, be they modal verbs, adverbs, or particles (2).
(1) Nalej sok v kanata!
Pour 2SG PF IMP juice M SG INDEF into jug F SG DEF
Pour some juice into the jug !
(2) a. Da nalee sok v kanata !
That MOD PARTICLE pour 3SG PRES PF juice M SG INDEF into jug F SG DEF
Let (her / him) pour juice into the jug!
b. Da ne nalee sok v kanata !
That MOD PARTICLE not pour 3SG PRES PF juice M SG INDEF into jug F SG DEF
She / He should not pour juice into the jug !
As example (2a) shows, Bulgarian has analytic imperative constructions with

present tense verb forms and the particle da 5. They exhibit full paradigms,
including forms for 1st and 3rd person singular and plural. Due to their
syntactic form in which negation follows the mood marker da, and therefore
does not take scope over modality, negative analytic imperatives are possible
with both verbal aspects (2b). In the following, we will concentrate on the
synthetic imperative forms which exhibit specific morpho-syntactic features
relevant to the study of imperfectivity.
The synthetic expression of imperative mood follows a general pattern
which holds for all South Slavic languages (Sussex & Cubberley 2006:
299f.). The verbal stem consisting of the verbal root and aspectual affixes
carries the imperative inflexion (often a thematic vowel) and may receive a
plural marker (3b). Imperatives are immanently oriented towards an
addressee and therefore not compatible with flexives marking person
agreement with grammatical subjects.
The following examples illustrate the derivation of imperative verb
forms by means of the imperative inflection i /j combining with consonantal
(3a) and vocalic stems (3b), respectively.
5
The multi-functional particle da, formally equivalent to the consecutive
conjunction that, expresses imperative force.
30 Milena Kuehnast
(3) a. pusn stem PF -a 1SG PRES IND - pusn stem PF -i 2SG IMP
‘to drop – drop!’
b. nale stem PF -ja 1SG PRES IND - nale stem PF -j 2SG IMP (-te 2PL)
‘to pour – pour!’
Based on the peculiarities of the speaker-oriented mood (Bybee and

Fleischmann 1995: 5), the temporal interpretation of an eventuality
verbalised in an imperative expression oscillates between present and future
readings. On the one hand, imperatives are immanently prospective (cf.
Palmer 1986: 112) because they establish a directive concerning a future
activity or a state of affairs to be set up by the addressee (addressee’s
perspective). On the other hand, imperatives obtain a present meaning if we
take into account that the obligation they express is valid at the moment of
speaking (speaker’s perspective). Therefore, synthetic imperatives are not
compatible with tense markers and may be categorised as verbal forms which
are less complex with respect to the set of morphological categories they
express (Donhauser 1987). Imperative forms carry aspectual information, but
abstract from a clear-cut temporal assignment of the event. In sum, synthetic
imperatives constitute a suitable testing ground for a language acquisition
study targeting the effects of aspectually sensitive sentential operators on the
aspectual interpretation and its formal expression.
2.1. Aspectual interpretation of negative imperatives in Bulgarian
The aspectual interpretation of negative imperatives in Bulgarian proposed in

this paper follows the cognitive framework of Klein (1994) and related
approaches. Bulgarian synthetic negative imperatives constitute an example
of aspectual coercion with an overt morphological reflex. The term aspectual
coercion will be used in the sense of Moens & Steedman (1988). Aspectual
coercion is defined by the authors as an aspectual type-shift operation
induced by a sentential modifier. Whether the coercion takes place covertly
or overtly by prompting specific morphological markers depends on the
morpho-syntactic properties of a given language (Moens & Steedman 1988:
20).
(4) The girl won the school chess championship.
(5) The girl won the school chess championship for several years.
(6) * The girl won the chess match for the first few minutes.
(7) The girl was winning the chess match for the first minutes, but then she
made a wrong move.
A conspicuous example of covert aspectual coercion is the iterative

interpretation of a core sentence containing a punctual verb and a singular
object in the presence of a durational adverb as in (5). In the absence of

sentential operators the core sentence (4) receives a single instance reading,
but the aspectual features of the durational adverb invoke a repetitive reading
– iteration of the action within the time span given by the adverbial.
In English, the proposition in (4) denotes a culminated process, in the
terminology of Moens & Steedman. The girl has achieved a change from a
preparatory state in which a chess match is still going on, and she is only a
potential winner to a resulting state in which she has captured the opponent's
king. According to the Vendlerian classification (Vendler 1967), the situation
of winning a chess match is an achievement – the capture of the opponent's
king instantiates a momentary change in the state of affairs. The presence of
an adverbial phrase referring to a time span situated in the preparatory state
before the culmination has been reached, as in (6), hardly makes any sense
because of the aspectual clash between the terminative meaning of the verbal
phrase and the durational meaning of the for-phrase. The syntactic
environment induces a reinterpretation of the proposition as referring to a
process (be winning a chess game), but it becomes felicitous only in the pres-
ence of a progressive auxiliary and the ing-infinitive. English handles
propositions expressing processes and progressive states by marking them
overtly by means of progressive auxiliaries (7).
The presence of aspectually sensitive sentential operators does not
transform the inherent propositional content – winning a chess match still
depicts an eventuality involving a change of state. What has changed is the
way of looking at the internal structure of the eventuality concentrating on
the source state. As Smith (1991: 63; 176) notices, languages may differ with
respect to the temporal schemas of eventualities. If the temporal schema of
achievements includes a preliminary stage, then an imperfective viewpoint is
possible.
In the following, the aspectual construal of imperative utterances will be
depicted within Klein’s (1994) cognitive approach of time categorisation in
the language which is principally compatible with the approach of Moens &
Steedman (1988), both theories adopting Reichenbach’s notion of point of
reference (Reichenbach 1947: 288ff.). The notion of Topic time is crucial for
Klein’s approach to temporality. Topic time is not simply an orientation
point, but a time span which confines a truth commitment of the speaker to
the propositional content (Klein 1994: 3f.). This specific combination of a
time span and truth assertion is essential for the definition of aspect. Topic
time is the lens through which the speaker looks at the duration of the
situation and its internal structure. Depending on the relations of inclusion or
exclusion between Topic time and Situation time, different aspectual values
are yielded. Perfectivity means a full or partial inclusion of the situation
stretch in the topic time, which is perceived as an external perspective on the
eventuality. The opposite constellation – inclusion of Topic time in the time
32 Milena Kuehnast
span of the situation – effects an internal perspective typically conveyed by

imperfective verbs. Topic time as the main reference frame is the pivot
mediating between the main temporal notions grammaticalised as tense and
aspect. Tense represents the positional relation between Topic time and the
time of utterance, while aspect locates Topic time on the internal structure of
the situation stretch.
Imperatives do not feature a genuine Topic time confining a truth claim.
Instead, they contain a reference time span constraining an obligation.
Obligation time (OT) includes the time of speaking because the demand is
valid at the moment the imperative is uttered. According to this criterion,
imperatives may be perceived as present forms. In contrast to this temporal
interpretation, the prototypical imperative utterance exhibits an inherently
prospective meaning because it refers to states of affairs which follow from
activities carried out by the addressee 6. Consider the aspectual configuration
given in (8), which is a Bulgarian positive imperative containing a perfective
verb.
(8) Sipi soka v kanata !
pour 2.SG.IMP.PF juice M.SG.DEF into jug F.SG. DEF
Pour the juice into the jug 7 !
On the lexical level, perfective verbs depict situations which express a

qualitative change of state, a transitional process or a punctual change from a
source state to a target state. Perfective verbs focus the reference time span
on the attainment of the target state. The use of a perfective verb in an
imperative utterance endorses the deontic meaning, as both emphasise the
completeness of the requested situation. As illustrated in Figure 1, the target
state is included in the time span confining the obligation. The inherent
prospectivity of the imperative aligns with the prospective meaning of the
formally present tense perfective verbs. The sequencing of the source and the
target state on the time axis produces a distance relation between the time of
speaking and the target state, which triggers a prospective interpretation.
6
There are also positive imperative utterances demanding that the existing
situation is preserved. In the next section it will be argued that negative
imperatives belong to the type [-change]. Compare also Birjulin's (1994:48-60)
classification of imperatives according to the feature [+/- required change of the
existing situation.]
7
Note that Bulgarian encodes nominal definiteness by means of enclitic definite
articles. In the given example, the bare noun sok would acquire a type reading as
in (1); the use of the definite article –a in soka “the juice” marks a specific
quantity of juice.
Figure 1. Aspectual construal of a positive imperative with a perfective verb
S Requested Situation:
an empty jug becomes a full jug
OT
In imperatives, negation usually operates on the propositional content,

directly influencing the aspectual construal. In the case of Bulgarian synthetic
imperatives, negation applies to a tenseless predicate marked only for aspect
and number. Negation affects the perfective interpretation of the predicate by
denying the anticipated change of state expressed by perfective verbs. The
spotlight of the verbal reference time span moves from the target state back
to the source state (cf. Figure 2). As pointed out by Klein (1994) and in
similar vein by Rothstein (2004), the lexical content of the predicate is
preserved. The inherent temporal structure of the denied situation does not
change – pouring the juice into the jug remains a telic event. What changes is
the way the speaker projects the reference interval onto the temporal schema
of the eventuality or onto associated preparatory states.
Figure 2. Aspectual interpretation of a negative imperative
Requested situation:
S
Preserve: empty jug becomes full jug
OT
In utterance (9) the speaker wants the addressee to preserve the initial state of
affairs, namely to leave the jug empty. The reference time of the imperative
(OT) is included in the situation time, yielding an imperfective interpretation.
Under negation, we obtain a combination of temporal values known as
imperfective present – both the time of speaking and the source state of the
situation denoted by the verb are included in the reference time of the
obligation.
34 Milena Kuehnast
In Bulgarian, the change of the viewpoint appears in the guise of

morphologically overt aspectual coercion instantiated by the obligatory use
of imperfective verbs (10). A negative imperative utterance containing a
perfective verb (9) violates the morpho-syntactic requirement of an overt
marking in the case that the reference time is included in the time stretch of
the situation.
(9) * Ne sipi soka v kanata.
* Not pour 2SG.IMP.PF juice N.SG.DEF into jug F. DEF
Don’t pour the juice into the jug!
(10) Ne sipvaj soka v kanata.

Not pour 2SG.IMP.IMPF juice N.SG.DEF into jug F. DEF
Don’t pour the juice into the jug !
In Slavic languages, the present tense form of perfective verbs does not
convey the meaning of actual present. When used as predicates in main
clauses, bare perfectives express future tense, which is their regular temporal
function. This is not the case in Bulgarian, where future tense is expressed
analytically by a future auxiliary. The use of the future auxiliary is equally
obligatory with perfective and imperfective verbs. Therefore in Bulgarian,
there are no negative synthetic imperatives with perfective verbs, which are
regularly employed in preventive utterances by speakers of the West and East
Slavic languages (Kuehnast 2008) 8.
2.2. Imperfective morphology, imperfectivisation and aspectual pairs
Bulgarian verbs offer intricate ways of depicting and viewing the internal
temporal constitution of events. Perfective aspect is encoded by means of
perfective prefixes and one suffix, while imperfective aspect is marked by
imperfective suffixes. Both aspects can also be expressed by non-derived
verbs, primary perfectives and imperfectives. There is an ongoing discussion
of the nature of Slavic type aspect, mainly on the question of whether the
morphological paradigms of perfective and imperfective verbs indeed
represent viewpoint aspect (cf. Smith, 1991, for a discussion of Russian
aspect) or whether real aspectual distinctions are encoded consistently only
8
In the cited paper I argue that the unavailability of perfective synthetic NI is due
to the impoverished temporal functions of bare perfective verbs and also to the
basic principle in the organisation of the TAM system of Bulgarian concerning
overtly differentiated and precise form to function mappings. For a different
approach see D. Levinson (2005), who relates the phenomenon of NI to
propertites of nominal case. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for drawing my
attention to Levinson’s work.
for the past tenses (Bertinetto 2001). In Slavic aspectology, the debate
revolves around the distinction between purely aspectual affixes, which alter
the aspectual value of the verb without changing its lexical meaning, and
derivational affixes, which combine derivational and grammatical functions.
For the purposes of the present study we will concentrate on
imperfective suffixes and the process of imperfectivisation in Bulgarian.
Imperfective verbs derived by means of imperfective suffixes do not differ
from their perfective counterparts in lexical content, but only in aspectual
value (Maslov 1981, Bojadziev et al. 1999). Therefore, imperfectivisation is
understood as a grammatical process. Imperfectivisation is a means of
viewpoint change and is operative in the aspectual systems of all Slavic
languages. Nevertheless, there are differences in the degree of application
and in the grammatical functions of the resulting imperfective verbs
(Ivančev 1978).
Imperfective derivation by means of imperfective suffixes applies to
almost all perfective verbs in Bulgarian. Primary imperfectivisation applies to
simple perfective verbs. Secondary imperfectivisation applies to derived
perfective verbs 9. Perfective verbs derived from simple imperfectives
through prefixation maintain the prefixed stem (11). Perfective verbs derived
by means of perfective suffixes such as -n receive the imperfective suffix
after stripping the perfective one (12).
(11) lepja primary impf – zalepja prefixed pf – zalepvam secondary impf ‘to glue’
(12) lepja primary impf – lepna suffixed pf – lepvam secondary impf - semelfactive meaning
There are two imperfective suffixes. Suffix -va represents a highly

productive pattern and has reached the status of inflectional morpheme as
convincingly argued for by Manova (2004). The author considers several
criteria discussed in the field of morphology research as relevant for the
distinction between derivation and inflection. Evaluated against such decisive
factors as preservation of word class, productivity, and consistent assignment
of inflexion class, the main imperfectivisation device in Bulgarian, the suffix
-va, ought to be situated on the inflection side of the continuum between
derivation and inflection. Manova (2004: 249) concludes that “in order to
underline the inflectional status of imperfectivization, Bulgarian has
developed a full set of aspectual forms”.
9
Not all Slavic languages apply secondary imperfectivsation to a similar degree.
For instance in Russian, a secondary imperfective is not available for verbs
derived by means of purely aspectual prefixes. This fact is used to prove the
derivation of true aspectual pairs. In Bulgarian, secondary imperfectivisation
always applies, if not barred on phonological grounds.
36 Milena Kuehnast
The non-productive suffix -a, mostly in combination with stem changes,

constitutes a minor imperfectivisation pattern. At present, it is under levelling
pressure and loses verbs to the productive paradigm.
3. Empirical investigation
Studies in the acquisition of verbal categories by children acquiring Slavic

languages have shown that the children are able to produce tense and aspect
morphology quite early. R. Weist and his colleagues (Weist et al. 1991;
Weist et al. 1984) presented evidence that children acquiring Polish produce
past tense inflections and are able to use them not only with telic but also
with atelic predicates even before the age of 2. Similar findings are reported
for the acquisition of Russian by Gagarina (2000) and Bar-Shalom (2002).
Bar-Shalom presents evidence that the 4 children she investigated (1;6 - 2;11)
produced verbs in all 3 Russian tenses and aspectual pairs quite appro-
priately. There were almost no errors in the use of perfective morphology.
With respect to the time course of acquisition, a similar result is
obtained from the naturalistic data of two Bulgarian girls (Kuehnast, Popova
& Popov 2004; Bittner et al. 2005). However, the tense system of Bulgarian
allows for a more differentiated look at the acquisition course of tense
markers regarding their functions in the construal of perfective and
imperfective meanings. While the Bulgarian children (1;1 - 2;5) were
similarly quick to use perfective and imperfective verbs in Aorist, Perfect and
Future, they produced very few tokens of verbs inflected for Imperfect tense,
and only at the end of the investigated period.
The low number of Imperfect tense verbs in the production of both girls
contrasts with the productive use of synthetic (Aorist) and analytic (Future
and Perfect) tenses which are more strongly associated with the expression of
bounded intervals. From the distribution of produced verbs we may infer that
Bulgarian children experience more difficulties with a tense form which
expresses an imperfective view of eventualities anterior to the moment of
speaking. This position is supported by findings from comprehension and
production studies (Kazanina & Phillips 2007, on Russian; van Hout 2005,
on Polish) which show that children's understanding of imperfective past
tense utterances deviates to some extent from adult interpretation.
The present cross-sectional investigation concentrates on the acquisition
of negative imperatives as these require the representation of an abstract,
counterfactual situation model and the overt marking of an internal
perspective to the situation structure. Based on evidence that children's
understanding of imperfective utterances is based on the representation of
ongoing situations (Vinnitskaya & Wechsler 2001, Weist at al. 1991), we
assume that Bulgarian children will produce the targeted NI more
successfully if the coerced interpretation yields an imperfective verb denoting
an atelic activity. Although adult Bulgarian speakers handle the imperfective

paradox with ease, we hypothesise that children’s production of target
imperfective verbs, which simultaneously express ongoingness and telicity
will be hampered by the intricate representation and the morphological
complexities associated with it.
3.1. Experimental method
We conducted a production study with a cross-sectional design using an

elicitation task. The idea behind the experiment was to trace the
developmental steps in the acquisition of secondary imperfectivisation with
respect to form and function related factors.
Participants: A total of 40 monolingual, normally developing children
participated in the experiment. As indicated in Table 1 they were divided into
2 age groups. The children were tested in their kindergarten in Vidin,
Bulgaria.
Table 1. Age groups
AGE GROUP MEAN AGE AGE BRACKET NUMBER
1 3;4 2;11 - 3;11 15

2 4;5 4;0 - 5;0 25
3.2. Design and materials
We performed an elicitation task. The experimenter produces positive

synthetic imperative utterances, asking a puppet to carry out an action. The
prompt sentences always contain a perfective verb. For the child to respond
to the task correctly, he / she produces a negative imperative with an
imperfective verb (see section 3.3. for a description of the procedure).
We selected 16 verbs which represent 3 types of perfective derivation: 4
simple perfective verbs, 6 suffixed and 6 prefixed verbs. Half of the verbs
belong to the productive imperfectivisation pattern (suffix -va), the other half
belong to the minor imperfectivisation pattern (suffix -a and stem vowel
change). Table 2 shows examples of morphological factors which are
expected to affect the process of overt aspectual coercion in production.
38 Milena Kuehnast
Table 2. Combination of morphological factors
IMPERFECTIVATION PATTERN
PERFECTIVE
Productive: suffix -va Minor: suffix– a / stem change
DERIVATION
stăpja pf – stypvam impf skocha pf - skacham impf

Simple
‘to step’ ‘to spring’
nadraskam – nadraskvam sec. impf procheta - prochitam sec. impf

Prefixed
‘to scribble over completely’ ‘to read through’
ritna pf - ritam impf - ritvam sec. impf blăsna pf – blăskam impf

Suffixed (-n)
‘to kick’ ‘to shove’
There is a relatively high correlation between types of perfective

derivation and situation description (see Table 3). The selected simple
perfective verbs can be reasonably understood to denote a punctual change of
state, an achievement situation description. Simple perfectives are subject to
(primary) imperfectivisation. The resulting imperfective verbs depict
associated processes, which lead to the punctual culmination.
Table 3. Assignment of the perfective stimuli to event descriptions

PERFECTIVE VERBS EVENT DESCRIPTIONS
Achievements Accomplishments Semelfactives
Simple 4
Suffixed 2 4
Prefixed 2 4
The suffixed perfectives also describe punctual events, either as

achievements or as semelfactives. In general, suffixed perfectives form an
aspectual pair with the simple imperfective activity verbs. If the temporal
configuration of imperfective present applies, the simple imperfective is
used. Depending on the availability of a semelfactive interpretation,
secondary imperfectivisation becomes morphologically available (cf. the verb
‘to kick’ in Table 2).
The selected prefixed verbs are accomplishments and achievements; the
latter interpretation is due to the ingressive meaning of the prefix. Prefixed
perfectives are subject to secondary imperfectivisation. Secondary
imperfectivised verbs achieve the highest level of derivational complexity
which reflects an intricate construal of aspectual meaning.
The verbs were selected from a corpus containing naturalistic

spontaneous speech of 3 children, Alexandra (1;3 - 1;11), Stefani (1;1 - 2;4),
and Bogomila (2;1 - 2;4). The usages of the 16 verbs found in the data of the
children substantiate the claim that all those verbs are acquired by Bulgarian
children by the age of 3. Several studies have shown that age of acquisition is
a reliable predictor of processing speed and accuracy in child and adult
production and comprehension tasks (cf. Barry & Johnston 2006, Druks &
Masterson 2000, Juhasz & Rayner 2003). In a recent study, J. Masterson and
her colleagues (2008) discuss word frequency values based on different
databases, e.g. frequency counts based on large corpora of adult speech or
frequency counts based on children's books, and the difficulty of obtaining
reliable child speech frequencies. They argue that although word frequency
in adult language 10 reflects input effects, and therefore has to be considered a
significant factor in experimental studies of child language, age of acquisition
appears to be a performance predictor of comparable strength and reliability.
3.3 Procedure
The children were tested in a quiet room in the kindergarten. The child and
the two experimenters sat together at a table. The first experimenter
introduced to the child a second experimenter who carried a glove puppet in
the shape of a penguin. She explained that this was the penguin Toto who had
come to Bulgaria from the South Pole. Toto is not familiar with the rules at
the kindergarten. The experimenter explained that she was going to play
some jokes on the penguin, asking Toto to do different things. The child was
asked to reject the silly requests and tell the penguin not to carry them out,
because such behaviour would be inappropriate in the kindergarten. The child
was encouraged to address the penguin directly.
Figure 3. Elicitation task
Situation: The penguin Toto is holding a tissue handkerchief.

He still doesn’t know that he has to put it in the rubbish bin.
Silly exp.: Toto, pusni 2SG IMP pf kărpata na zemjata

Toto, drop the handkerchief on the floor!
Child: Toto, ne ja puskaj 2SG IMP impf na zemjata!

Toto, don't drop it on the floor.
10
To my knowledge, there is no sufficiently large corpus of Bulgarian which can
be used for frequency counts at the moment.
40 Milena Kuehnast
The procedure has the advantage of making the child direct prohibitive
requests not to an adult person, but to a penguin puppet in a pragmatically
well motivated situation. Stated in this way the task avoids potential
problems with the authority cline between adults and children in a direct
interaction.
Subjects received 2 or 3 training stimuli, and once they were able to
understand the task, the experimental stimuli were given. The stimuli were
written on cards and presented in random order. The sessions were audio
recorded and subsequently transcribed.
4. Results and discussion
As valid answers we counted all negative requests, be they second person

synthetic imperative forms or alternative analytic forms. We obtained a
generally high response score of 98%. The valid answers contain 91.6%
negative imperative forms and 8.4% other negative constructions. An one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveals an age effect on the general task
compliance (F(1, 596) = 13.1; p <0.000) which increases from 87% to 95%.
4.1. The expression of force in negative imperatives
The production of synthetic NI is unproblematic and remains at a level of

80% in both age groups. With age the children produced more analytic NI
which express a moderate request. When the children did not produce the
required synthetic negative imperatives they opted for several types of
negative utterances with pragmatically related meanings: elliptic utterances
such as (13) and (14), 3rd person analytic negative constructions with the
modal da- particle (15) or negative statements with future predicates (16).
The alternative constructions emphasise different aspects in the modal and
temporal interpretation of negative requests.
Table 4. Distribution of negative requests per age group

AGE GROUP
NEGATIVE REQUESTS 2;11 - 3;11 4;0 - 5;0

Synthetic NI 80.2% 81.5%
Analytic nedej-NI 6.6 % 13.0 %
Modal da-constructions 3.3 % 1.8 %
Elliptic utterances 8.5 % 2.3 %
Future predicates 1.4 % 1.3 %
There are 3 types of short elliptical utterances (without lexical verbs) which
express different degrees of obligation depending mainly on intonation and
gestures and partly on the lexical means chosen. The imperative force used
varies from prohibition expressed by the simple rejection “No !” and with
proper intonation, to different degrees of permission expressed by simple
negative modals (13) or constituent negation (14).
(13) Exp: Toto, stăpi pf na topkata !
Step on the ball !
Child(2;11): Ne mozhe !
This is not allowed !
(14) Exp: Toto glătni pf kopcheto !
Toto, swallow the button !
Child (2;11): Ne kopcheto n, def !
Not the button !
(15) Exp: Toto, nadraskaj pf lista !
Toto, scribble over the page !
Child (4;02): Da ne nadraskva 3SG PRES impf lista !
(He) should not scribble over the page !
(16) Exp: Toto, skochi pf dolu !
Toto, spring down !
Child (4;05): Njama da skochish 2SG FUT pf !
(You) will not spring !
The strategy to use elliptic utterances is not employed by the children in a

homogeneous way. With age the number of elliptic utterances decreases, but
remains an option. There is a qualitative difference based on the type of
deontic necessity children want to express. Younger children try to avoid
being a deontic source and opt for a weaker obligation ascribed to a general
impossibility / inappropriateness of carrying out the action. They decide on
elliptic modal constructions of the type “It's not allowed” (13). Older children
prefer the brevity of prohibitive “No!” supported by appropriate intonation.
Only the youngest children (2;11) produced elliptic utterances with
constituent negation. Such usages are remnants of an earlier developmental
stage (around 2;6) in the acquisition of verbal aspect. At the beginning of
productive use of perfective morphology the children still have to sort
through the elements of lexical and grammatical aspectual meaning
integrated in Bulgarian perfective verbs. It is characteristic of this stage that
children often mark telic situations compositionally, on the level of the verb
phrase. They combine an imperfective activity verb with a definite object and
arrive at a telic interpretation through the specified quantity of the noun.
(Kuehnast, Popova & Popov 2004). At this stage Bulgarian children seem to
focus on the temporal schemes of the eventualities and their proper
representation, exploring the different morpho-syntactic means provided by
42 Milena Kuehnast
the target system. In the present case, the youngest subjects seem to reverse
the principle. By means of constituent negation they deny the definite object,
which measures out the event (in the sense of Verkuyl 1993) and arrive at an
atelic interpretation akin to the imperfective viewpoint required in a negative
imperative.
The remaining alternative constructions (15) and (16) impose an
obligation on the addressee more or less directly. The rates of the more
neutral 3rd person analytic da-constructions, which help to avoid addressing
the interlocutor with a direct command remain relatively stable. The use of
periphrastic da-constructions becomes reinforced by the fact that they allow
for perfective verbs. Such utterances are interpreted rather as warnings than
as commands.
Children aged 4;7 - 5;0 do not avoid direct requests, producing 84%
synthetic NI. The only analytic example with an embedded da-construction
expresses the performative and the propositional part of the prohibitive
separately (17).
(17) Exp: Toto, priberi pf igrachkite !
Toto, collect the toys !
Child (4;7): Ne ti davam da gi pribirash 2SG PRES impf !
I don't permit you to collect the toys !
In a few cases the subjects used statements with future predicates. The
truth commitment contained in the tensed predicate expresses degrees of
certainty that the denied situation will not be brought about which are
comparable to those of the synthetic negative imperatives. With age, children
feel more comfortable with the position of authority which is needed in order
to impose on an interlocutor an obligation concerning a counterfactual
situation. With respect to the end effect desired by the speaker, synthetic
negative imperatives are quite subtle expressions. The request to the
addressee to keep the present state of affairs is linguistically marked only
through the imperfective form of the imperative predicate.
4.2 Aspectual issues: a form-related analysis
In the theoretical discussion, we argued that the temporal interpretation of a

prohibitive utterance is best described as imperfective present. In Bulgarian,
taking an imperfective perspective on an eventuality requires an overt
expression by means of an imperfective verb form. The experimental data
reveals high compliance with the aspectual requirement in the produced
negative imperatives. With age the rates of imperfective verbs increase from
90% to 93% within the synthetic and analytic 2nd person negative imperative
utterances. Quantitatively, there is no age effect, as the imperfectivisation

rates are already high and increase linearly.
In order to detect age related changes in the way children deal with
aspectual morphology in cases of aspectual coercion, we conducted a 2 x 3 x
2 way ANOVA analysis with the factors age group, perfective derivation and
imperfectivisation pattern, on the production of imperfective versus
perfective forms in synthetic negative imperatives. In this analysis, both
target imperfective forms and erroneously imperfectivised forms were
counted as valid responses; lexical substitutes were excluded from the
analysis.
There is no main effect of imperfectivisation pattern, but a significant
effect of perfective derivation (F(2,514)=4.984 p<0.007) on the imperfectivisa-
tion success. While imperfective counterparts of suffixed perfectives are
highly accessible to the children (95%), imperfectivised forms of the simple
(91%) and the prefixed perfectives (87%) are produced less frequently. There
was no age effect, but we found a significant interaction between age group
and derivation type (F(2,514)=3.232 p<0.040). The interaction is related to the
increase of imperfective forms derived from primary perfectives in the
production of the older children. The significant interaction between
perfective derivation and imperfectivisation pattern (F(2,514)=6.577 p<0.002) is
based mainly on the fact that simple perfective verbs are more accessible to
imperfectivisation if they belong to the productive va-pattern, while the
opposite patterns hold for prefixed verbs.
The significant interactions between perfective and imperfective
aspectual markers and age group are analysed in more detail with respect to
production rates of target forms. Figure 4 illustrates that suffixed perfectives
are not only more accessible to an imperfective perspective in general, but
that children produce the target imperfective verbs quite easily.
Figure 4. Production of target imperfective verbs in NI
100%
% target forms
75%
2;11 - 3;11
50%
4;0 - 5;0
25%
0%
simple prefixed suffixed
Perfective derivation
44 Milena Kuehnast
Therefore, the following analysis considers only the performance on

simple and prefixed perfectives. Verbs belonging to these two types have to
undergo imperfectivisation. The results of the 2 x 2 x 2 way ANOVA with
the factors perfective derivation, imperfectivisation pattern and age group on
the production of target verb forms reveal a main effect of perfective
derivation (F(1,298)=31.55 p<0.000), due to the low rates of secondary
imperfectivised prefixed verbs. The significant interaction between perfective
derivation and age group (F(2,514)=5.924 p<0.016) reflects developmental
changes in the ability to imperfectivise simple perfectives. With age children
considerably improve their performance with simple perfectives, approaching
adult-like production, while their ability to produce secondary imperfecti-
vised prefixed verbs seemingly decreases. There was no main effect of im-
perfectivisation pattern on the production of target forms and no interaction
with the other factors. This result seems inconsistent with the finding that
affiliation with the productive or with the minor imperfectivisation pattern
has different effects on the overall probability that children will produce
imperfective forms from simple and prefixed perfectives.
The puzzle can be resolved through a more detailed form-based error
analysis. Bulgarian children in the first age bracket (2;11 - 3;11) already use
the suffix -va productively (see analysis of longitudinal data in Kuehnast,
Popova & Popov (2004). However, when they encounter irregular simple
perfectives, they behave more conservatively. Regular prefixed perfectives
are subject to prefix stripping. The members of the irregular
imperfectivisation pattern are less readily available to prefix stripping and
attract non-target applications of the va-suffix. As a result, they get
inappropriate imperfective markers more frequently, while production rates
of target forms stagnate.
Table 5. Age group (2;11-3;11) distribution of verb forms produced in NI
IMPERFECTIVISATION PATTERN PERFECTIVE DERIVATION
PRODUCTIVE -va Realisation simple prefixed
target imperfective form 85.7% 57.6%

prefix stripping 21.2%
perf (imperfectisation failure) 14.3% 21.2%
MINOR -a / stem change target imperfective form 69.6% 65.6%

add -va 8.7% 21.9%
prefix stripping & add -va 6.3%
perf (imperfectisation failure) 21.7% 3.1%
The overall correlation between imperfectivisation pattern and perfective

derivation classes is preserved and enhanced in the production pattern of the
older children. The small set of simple perfective verbs and the high
frequency of their use provide acquisition advantages over the large-sized
derivational families of prefixed perfectives.
Table 6. Age group (4;0-5;0) distribution of verb forms produced in NI

IMPERFECTIVISATION
PATTERN PERFECTIVE DERIVATION
PRODUCTIVE: -va Realisation simple prefixed

prefix stripping & add va 14.9%
perf verb (imperfectisation failure) 4.8% 22.4%
MINOR: -a / stem
change
add va 4.4% 30.0%
perf verb (imperfectisation failure) 6.5% 8.6%
Older children who have had more time to become acquainted with the target
aspectual system are highly sensitive to the imperfectivisation requirement in
NI and tend to combine imperfectivisation strategies, sometimes producing
hybrid imperfectivised forms (18) – (19).
(18) Exp: Toto, nadraskaj prefixed pf masata!
Toto, scribble over the desk !
Child: Toto, ne ja * draskvaj prefix stripping + suffix –va !
Toto, don't scribble it over !
target: nadraskvaj
(19) Exp: Toto, izleti prefixed pf prez prozoretsa !
Toto, fly away through the window !
Child: Toto, ne *izlitvaj stem change + suffix -va !
Toto, don't fly away !
target: izlitaj
The frequency of such usages effects that the overall imperfective marking of
prefixed perfectives increases, but at the same time the rate of target
imperfectivised forms remains low.
46 Milena Kuehnast
4.3 Meaning-related perspectives on the error analysis
The experimental data shows that the children produced negative imperatives
with imperfective forms reliably. However, the error patterns obtained cannot
be sufficiently accounted for only by considering the properties of the
morphological paradigm. Productivity, transparency and frequency of usage
exert a significant impact on the acquisition process of aspectual
morphology. Nevertheless, the error analysis above demonstrates that
children do not apply the productive imperfectivisation suffix in all cases.
Which factors could possibly strengthen the preference of the younger
children to apply prefix stripping to verbs of the productive class and not to
the verbs of the minor class ? We want to propose that these factors are
related to the interpretation of the prohibitive utterances in terms of the
temporal schema expressed in the lexical item and its representation in the
situation model.
A closer look at the experimental items which are available to prefix
stripping reveals that these verbs correspond to accomplishment and
achievement situation descriptions. The verbs from the productive imper-
fectivisation class denote accomplishments; the verbs from the minor class
denote achievements. Prefix stripping yields the simple imperfective verb
from which the perfective verb is derived. The basic imperfective verb
depicts an atelic activity. In a negative imperative context, the application of
prefix stripping to achievement and accomplishment predicates yields quite
different results. The activity expressed by the resulting simple imperfective
is located either before (20) or after the negated change of state (21).
The irregular prefixed perfective verbs used in the experiment are
derived by means of ingressive suffixes and depict achievement situations.
The punctual change of state applies to the beginning of the activity denoted
by the basic imperfective verb and situates this activity in the target state. In
the case of prohibitive utterances containing an ingressive achievement
predicate, prefix stripping yields an expression which does not fit the
causality chain of the situation model. The use of the simple imperfective
verb appears unfortunate as it depicts a situation referring to the subsequent
activity (21). The fact that prefix stripping was used sporadically is due to the
general-factual meaning of simple imperfective verbs – all phases of the
action are included in the basic denotation. Vinnitskaya and Wexler (2001)
found similar production behaviour in Russian children, who overused
imperfective forms for situations in which adult speakers produced perfective
verbs.
(20) a. Morphological derivation pattern:
draskam simple impf – nadraskam prefixed pf – nadraskvam sec. impf
‘to scribble – to scribble sth. over – to be scribbling sth over ’
b. Temporal chain:
scribbling (source state) – object scribbled all over (target state)
(21) a. Morphological derivation pattern:
letja simple impf – izletja prefixed pf – izlitam sec. impf
‘to fly – fly away – to be flying away’
b. Temporal chain:
starting to fly (source state) – flying activity (target state)
In the case of accomplishments predicates, the basic activity is situated at the

source stretch of a corresponding 2-state perfective predicate (20). Children
in both age groups regularly produced negative commands in which the
predicate is imperfectivised by prefix stripping. In this way, they apply
negation to an atelic situation description. The resulting form imposes on the
addressee the requirement to refrain from an activity which is the source of
the denied situation. In terms of pragmatic appropriateness, negative requests
with simple imperfectives reliably provide the desired result because, without
a source action, no resultant change of state can be obtained.
Nevertheless, the target form requires an imperfectivised prefixed verb.
Secondary imperfectivisation shifts the perspective from the target state to
the source state. Obligation time (OT) is included in the source state of the
accomplishment situation. The resulting interpretation is that the speaker
does not request the listener to refrain from the atelic activity; only the
attainment of the prospective change of state is rejected.
The production rates displayed in Tables 5 and 6 show that children are
sensitive to the achievement / accomplishment distinction within the group of
prefixed verbs. The rates of prefix stripping applied to accomplishment
predicates remain stable, but with age the children apply the productive suffix
more often in an attempt to produce the required secondary imperfectivised
form.
The selected simple perfective verbs are isomorphic to descriptions of
achievement situations. They build minimal pairs with their derived
imperfective counterparts. Initially children (2;11 - 3;11) seem to experience
some difficulties in applying imperfective perspective to a punctual change of
state which is not associated with an atelic activity in the target language.
A relative high percentage of the produced NI contains perfective forms
(Figure 4 and Table 5). In our view, this is due to the fact that the children are
able to represent the state of affairs described by the interlocutor and to
negate it. The required representation of the actual situation is not available
in those cases. As indicated by the lack of imperfectivity markers, the
children have not shifted their perspective back towards the time of speaking.
Still, there is no coincidental relation between time of speaking, obligation
time and a potential preliminary activity.
48 Milena Kuehnast
The production of imperfectivised target forms increases significantly

with age and reaches the upper limit level similar to the correctness cores of
the suffixed perfectives, which also represent punctual situation descriptions.
As pointed out in the previous section, suffixed perfectives form aspectual
pairs with the basic imperfective verbs. The simple imperfective partners are
readily available even to the younger children when they are confronted with
contexts of aspectual coercion. The obtained result allows the inference that
the situation model underlying negative imperatives with this kind of
predicates is the point of departure for the children on their way to adult
interpretation of prohibitive utterances.
As convincingly argued by Rothstein (2004:185ff.), semelfactives
represent minimal activity events. They have internal structure, a starting
point, perhaps trajectory and an endpoint. In Bulgarian the suffix -n,
traditionally called the semelfactive suffix, is used to derive a single
instantiation of an activity. The fast acquisition of suffix -n is taken as
evidence that shifting between a holistic and an internal perspective towards
a minimal activity event is achieved early by the children acquiring
Bulgarian. A negative request containing a semelfactive verb is interpreted as
an obligation to restrain from the minimal activity.
The hypothesis that children may adopt the mechanism of negating the
associated activity for other types of situation descriptions is supported by the
data. The analysis of the morphological techniques applied by the children
demonstrates that the target imperfectivised forms are achieved faster with
semelfactives and achievements as their negation naturally involves denial of
the related activity. This pattern is enhanced through the representation of
causality relations, long known to be central to the acquisition of negation
(Volterra & Antinucci 1979; Bates, Camaioni & Volterra 1979).
The proposed line of reasoning gains additional support from a special
type of error found in the data. In 4% of the responses, children produced
verbs differing from the perfective prompts. In all cases the alternative verbs
are imperfective. They are either related to possible processes situated in the
pre-time time of the described situation (22) or are synonymous with the
given verb.
There is an age related difference with respect to the use of alternative
verbs (χ=9.899 p<0.002). The younger children (2;11 - 3;11) produced more
verbs (82%) denoting potential eventualities which are in a temporal or
causal relation to the prohibited state of affairs.
(22) Exp: Toto, natisni pf kopcheto !
Toto, press the button !
Child: Toto, ne go pipaj impf !
Toto, don't touch it !
In the remaining cases, the children concentrated on the associated activity

for which primary imperfective verbs are available. For instance, the verb
blysna ‘shove away’ was replaced by the synonymous verb butam ‘to push
continuously’.
The older children (4;0 - 5;0) opted for verbs which represent a
synonymous description of the situation (89%), depending on the subjective
perception of the action, e.g. stepping on the ball was characterised by two
children as a process of lacing oneself on the ball, either sitting or standing.
The representation of the situation expressed in a negative imperative
involves several elements: the assumption that the addressee is going to carry
out the negated situation, the attempt to prevent him or her from doing so by
uttering a request, the representation of the state of affairs to be kept
unchanged and the representation and marking of the proper viewpoint
through the selected verbal frame. The last step seems to pose some problems
to Bulgarian children aged 5 and younger. When dealing with accomplish-
ment predicates they still rely on causality relations between parts of the
simulated situation model and often fail to take an internal perspective with
respect to the source state. Applying an imperfective viewpoint to an
accomplishment situation description presents a challenge to children
acquiring the aspectual system in Bulgarian.
5. Summary and conclusion
In communicative situations children, like adults, simulate the state of affairs

they talk about in a situational model which is grounded in perception and
experience (Kaup, Lüdtke, & Zwaan 2006). An important part of the
simulation is the way the speaker looks at differently structured situation
types. The means the speakers have at their disposal in order to express such
viewpoints differ with respect to the TAM categories specific to the language
in question. Negative utterances, which include the representation of a
counterfactual state of affairs are of special interest because they involve a
higher level of abstraction with respect to the internal structure of the
depicted eventualities.
Based on these assumptions we conducted an experimental study on the
acquisition of negative imperatives by 3 to 5 year-old Bulgarian children. The
morpho-syntactic properties of the tenseless imperative predicates offer the
opportunity to look more closely at processes of aspectual construal. The
experimental study provides evidence that Bulgarian children are sensitive to
different aspects concerning the performative and the propositional elements
of negative imperative utterances. With age, children feel more comfortable
with the expression of force and are able to produce the synthetic negative
imperatives required in the experimental task.
50 Milena Kuehnast
Synthetic negative imperative constructions were selected as targets of

the elicitation task because they present a context in which imperfective verb
forms are mandatory. While positive requests are well-formed with perfective
and imperfective verbs, only imperfective verbs are grammatical in negative
imperative utterances. We argue that the predicate of a negative imperative is
subjected to overt aspectual coercion. Negation affects the aspectual value of
the predicate, yielding a temporal configuration of imperfective present
which triggers an imperfectivisation requirement in Bulgarian.
The main goal of the study was to explore developmental stages with
respect to the acquisition of imperfective viewpoints on telic situation
descriptions and the employment of imperfective morphology. For this
purpose we tested relatively homogenous age groups and were able to
discover age-related changes in the way children cope with different shapes
of the imperfective paradox.
The results we obtained show significant effects of morphological
complexity on the production of imperfective verbs in terms of perfective
derivation and affiliation to the productive imperfectivisation pattern. While
the children approached adult-like performance in producing the imperfective
counterparts of simple and suffixed perfective verbs (over 75% correct), they
were considerably less successful in producing secondary imperfectivised
forms from prefixed perfective verbs up to the end of the investigated age
bracket (2;11 - 5;0).
The error analysis presents evidence that Bulgarian children do not
always interpret the temporal configuration of negative imperatives the way
adults do. Younger children achieve best performance with suffixed
perfectives that predominantly depict semelfactive events, and they also show
quick improvement with simple perfectives denoting achievements.
When children are confronted with requests concerning punctual events
they simulate a one-stage situation. Applying negation to one-state situation
descriptions means to reject associated activities placed in the pre-time of the
potential punctual change of state. By rejecting the realisation of prerequisite
activity, children make sure that the state of affairs will not be brought about.
The causality chain of the situation model is in perfect agreement with the
target aspectual interpretation, which involves shifting the time stretch of
obligation into the pre-time of the punctual event.
The error type of prefix stripping was found to be relatively robust
suggesting that children tend to generalise the causality-related interpretation
to negative imperatives with accomplishment predicates in which the proper
imperfective perspective on the internal structure of the situation does not
coincide with the causality chain. A secondary imperfectivised verb indicates
that the obligation is located within the source state of the accomplishment
situation description. The aspectual configuration is understood as expressing
an imperfective view on a telic situation. In our data children often opted for
the simple imperfective verb, thus rejecting the activity of the source state. In
such cases, the children preserved the view of the accomplishment as an
‘indivisible whole’ (Comrie 1976) encoded in the prefixed perfective stem
and did not zoom in on the internal temporal structure of the event.
The obtained results fit well in the ‘perspective-based’ approach to the
acquisition of imperfective aspect, which is grounded in studies exploring the
acquisition of perfective and imperfective past tense meaning to form
mappings. Knowledge of the perfective / imperfective contrast is associated
with the ability of the children to vary their perspective towards the event.
Other lines of reasoning (i.e. lack of pragmatic knowledge restricting the use
of past imperfectives as in Vinnitskaya & Wexler (2001) or problems with
discourse integration as in van Hout (2005)) also draw on past tense
experiments. The complex interrelations of tense and aspect in past tense
utterances and the different discourse-related readings such utterances may
obtain, make it difficult to disentangle the effects of these factors on the
acquisition of imperfectivity as aspectual notion.
The current experiment abstracts away from the discussion revolving
around the imperfective past tense uses and the associated failure / success of
temporal linking to other past events (van Hout 2005; Kazanina & Phillips
2007). The experimental method targets the ability of a child to map his / her
‘here and now’ viewpoint onto the internal structure of the event. The main
findings support the view that young children acquire perspective shifting
only gradually. The significant correlation between appropriate uses of
imperfective morphology and verb types found in the production data
indicates that the conceptual similarities between the properties of some
situation descriptions and the characteristics of an event internal perspective
boosts the acquisition of imperfective aspect.
Although they are successful in imperfectivising primary and suffixed
perfective verbs, Bulgarian children experience difficulties when they have to
shift their perspective to the source state of a two-state predicate and to mark
this shift appropriately up to the age of 5. The experimental data based on the
production of coerced imperfective negative imperatives provides evidence
that 3 to 5-year-old Bulgarian children are still on their way to acquire all
facets of imperfective aspect available in the TAM system of Bulgarian.
References
Bar-Shalom, E. (2002). Tense and aspect in early child Russian. Language

Acquisition 10: 321-337.
Bates, E.; Camaioni, L.; Volterra, V. (1979). The acquisition of performa-
tives prior to speech. In: E. Ochs; B. Schieffelin (eds), 111-128.
Barry, C.; Johnston, R. A. (eds), (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical
processing. Visual Cognition 13 , 789-845.
52 Milena Kuehnast
Bertinetto, P. M. (2001). On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-

aspectual domain: The “perfective-telic” confusion. In: C. Cecchetto; G.
Chierchia; M. T. Guasti (eds), Semantic interfaces: reference, anaphora
and aspect. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication, 177-210.
Bittner, D.; Gagarina, N.; Kuehnast, M; Popova, V. (2005). Aspect before
tense in first language acquisition of Bulgarian, Russian, and German.
In: V. Solovyev; V. Goldberg; V. Polyakov (eds), Proceedings of the
VIIIth International Conference “Cognitive Modelling in Linguistics”,
Moscow: Ucheba, 262-272.
Bojadzhiev, T.; Kucarov, I.; Penchev, J. (1999). Savremenen balgarski ezik.
[Contemporary Bulgarian Language] Sofia: Petar Beron.
Birjulin, L. (1994). Semantika i pragmatica ruskogo imperativa [Semantics
and pragmatics of the Russian imperative]. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Bybee, J.; Fleischman, S. (1995). An Introductory Essay. In: Bybee, J.; S.
Fleischman (eds), Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-14.
Chrakovskij, V.S; Volodin, A.P. (1986). Semantika i tipologija imperativa :
russkij imperativ [Semantics and typology of imperatives: the Russian
imperative]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donhauser, K. (1987). Mood and morphology. An alternative approach to the
syntax and semantics of German moods. Lingua 73: 53-77.
Levinson, D. (2005). Aspect in negative imperatives and genitive of
negation: A unified analysis of two phenomena in Slavic languages.
Available at: www.stanford.edu/~dmitryle.
Masterson, J.; Druks, J.; Gallienne, D. (2008). Object and action picture
naming in three- and five-year-old children. Journal of Child Language,
35: 373-402.
Gagarina, N. (2000). The acquisition of aspectuality by Russian children: the
early stages. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 15: 232-246.
Guentcheva, Z. (1983). Po văprosa za vtoričnata imperfektivazija v
bălgariskija ezik. In: Istoriceski razvoj na balgarskija ezik: dokladi
[Historical development of the Bulgarian language]. Sofia: Bălgarska
akademija na naukite, 262-283.
Ivančev, S. (1978). Prinosi v bălgarskoto i slavjanskoto ezikoznanie.
[Contributions to the Slavic and Bulgarian studies] Sofia: Nauka i
izkustvo.
Juhasz, B.; Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of inter-
correlated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 29: 1312-
1318.
Kaup, B.; Lüdtke, J.; Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences

with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open, mentally
closed ? Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1033-1050.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.
Kuehnast, M.; Popova, V.; Popov, D. (2004). Erwerb der Aspektmarkierung
im Bulgarischen. ZAS papers in Linguistics 33: 63-86.
Kuehnast, M. (2008). Aspectual coercion in Bulgarian negative imperatives.
In Abraham, W.; Leiss, E. (eds), Modality-aspect interfaces:
implications and typological solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
175-196.
Kazanina, N.; Phillips, C. (2007). A developmental perspective on the
Imperfective Paradox. Cognition 105: 65-102.
Lions, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Manova, S. (2005). Derivation versus inflection in three inflecting languages.
In: W. U. Dressler; D. Kastovsky; O. E. Pfeiffer; F. Rainer (eds),
Morphology and its demarcations. Selected papers from the 11th
Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2004. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 233-252.
Maslov, J. (1981). Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka [Grammar of the
Bulgarian language]. Moskva: Vysshaja shkola.
Moens, M.; Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal
reference. Computational linguistics 14: 15-28.
Ochs, E.; Schiefflin, B. (eds), (1979). Developmental pragmatics. New York:
Academic Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1947): Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Rothstein, S. (2004): Structuring events: a study in the semantics of lexical
aspect. Malden, M.A & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Hout, A. (2005). Imperfect imperfectives. In: P. Kempchinsky and R.
Slabakova, (eds), Aspectual inquiries. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 317-44.
Sussex, R.; Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic languages, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell:
University Press.
Verkuyl, H. (1993). A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between
temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Vinnitskaya, I.; Wexler, K. (2001). The role of pragmatics in the
development of Russian aspect. First Language 21 : 143-186.
54 Milena Kuehnast
Volterra, V.; Antinucci, F. (1979). Negation in child language: a pragmatic

study. In: Ochs, E; Schiefflin, B. (eds), 281-303.
Weist, R. M.; Wysocka, H.; Witkowska-Stadnik; K.; Buczowska, E.;
Koniecna, E. (1984). The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence
of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11: 347-
374.
Weist, R.; Wysocka, H.; Lyytinen, P. (1991). A cross-linguistic perspective
on the development of temporal systems. Journal of Child Language
18: 67-92.
To spellout, or not to spellout ? That’s the deficit 1
Yi-An LIN
St. John’s University, Taiwan
1. Introduction
Specific language impairment (SLI) is a developmental language disorder

that cannot be explained by factors such as neurological trauma, cognitive
impairment, psycho-emotional disturbance, or motor-articulatory disorders
(Eisenbeiss, Bartke and Clahsen 2006); hence, the identification of SLI is
usually based on a set of exclusionary criteria. Leonard (1998) mentions the
following primary criteria for the diagnosis of SLI. Namely, language test
scores are of -1.25 standard deviations from the mean, nonverbal
performance IQ is 85 or above, hearing passes screening at conventional
levels, no recent episodes of otitis media are known, no neurological
dysfunction is shown, oral motor structure and function are both intact, and
the pattern of social interaction is normal.
However, language impairment is a crucial characteristic of SLI.
Individuals with SLI have been reported to experience difficulties with most
or all areas of language, including vocabulary, morphosyntax, phonology,
and pragmatics. Nevertheless, these areas are not equally affected. As
indicated by Leonard (2004), vocabulary and pragmatic skills are less
deficient than phonology and morphosyntax in English. For theoretical
linguists and psycholinguists, one of the primary deficits in SLI relates to the
acquisition of morphosyntax. As a result, the aim of linguistics-oriented
studies of SLI is to characterize the morphosyntax of this population and to
explain the difference between SLI and typically-developing (TD) children in
the framework of current grammatical theories or theories of grammatical
development (Eisenbeiss, Bartke and Clahsen 2006).
This study is especially concerned with the nature of grammatical errors
made by children with SLI, which involve core syntactic operations such as
movement, agreement and Case 2 assignment. Two competing accounts of
SLI, namely Wexler, Schütze and Rice’s (1998) Agreement and Tense
1
I am grateful to my M.A. supervisor Andrew Radford for his insightful
contribution to the development of the Phonetic Form Deficit Model in this
study, as well as in my Master’s dissertation submitted at the University of
Essex.
2
In GB or MP, Case refers to abstract Case, while case refers to morphological
case.

56 Yi-An Lin
Omission Model (ATOM) and Lin’s (2006) Phonetic Form Deficit Model
(PFDM), are evaluated on the basis of the Leonard corpus of spontaneous
speech production data in the Child Language Data Exchange System
(CHILDES). If SLI involves a syntactic deficit, one should find that syntactic
operations, such as Argument movement (A-movement) and Case
assignment, will be a problem for children with SLI. In contrast, if SLI
involves a phonetic form (PF) deficit, one should find that children with SLI
commit errors on PF operations, such as tense marking, agreement marking
and auxiliary inversion, but leave syntactic operations intact.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Minimalist programme
According to Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001, 2004), the main aspects of the
Minimalist Programme (MP) are motivated by general principles underlying
the way in which all biological systems operate, language being just a
representative element of these systems. Language acquisition is determined
by a biologically endowed innate language organ called the Faculty of
Language (FL). Universal Grammar (UG) is the theory of the initial stage of
FL and might be seen as a unified model of the distinguishing features of
human languages.
The architecture of FL outlined in the latest of Chomsky’s papers (1995,
2001, 2004) includes a cognitive system and performance systems. The
cognitive system stores information and makes this information available to
the performance systems that access it in language use. A natural language in
the human cognitive system consists of two basic components: a Lexicon
(Lex) and a Computational System for Human Language (CHL). It is the Lex
that feeds the building blocks of the sentence into the CHL. The Lex
represents a mental dictionary of all substantive and non-substantive lexical
items in the language (LIs), which are characterized by their idiosyncratic
traits. These LIs are seen as feature-bundles of phonological, semantic and
formal features. A particular language selects features from the store of
features made available by UG and is identified by a listing of combinations
of these features in the Lex. In other words, it is in the Lex that categories are
assumed to be specified for the properties that determine the language-
specific, but UG-constrained, syntax. It is the locus of parametric variation.
Therefore, everything that people have to acquire in order to know a
particular language is in the Lex.
The CHL, which performs Narrow Syntax (NS), is a step–by-step
structure-building system which combines primitive elements from Lex into
larger units. The numeration is an array or a selection of LIs taken from the
Lex, and it functions as a pre-syntactic workspace for those selected LIs to be
fed into the CHL to build a syntactic structure. It also indicates how many
times LIs are to be used in a structure; therefore, it constitutes the initial point
of the structure-building process. Spellout is the point at which the CHL passes
over the most recently derived part of the derivation to the interface
components, Phonetic Form (PF) and Logical Form (LF). PF is the interface
component that translates the syntactic structure into a format readable by the
Articulatory-Perceptual system (A-P), which computes the structure’s
pronunciation. LF is the interface component that translates the syntactic
structure into a format which the Conceptional-Intentional (C-I) system can
deal with to compute the conceptualisation and interpretation of the structure.
Chomsky (1995) proposes that the computation of an expression (Exp)
converges at an interface level only if Exp consists solely of elements
providing instructions to the external systems that will make use of those
instructions. Features that are legible to the external systems at the interface
level are interpretable, while all other features are defined as uninterpretable.
In other words, only the interpretable features can survive to the LF and PF
representation, and the uninterpretable features must be eliminated. An
uninterpretable feature reaching the interface will cause the derivation to
crash. Both the interpretable and uninterpretable features are attribute-value
pairs. Furthermore, the unvalued features are uninterpretable features, but not
vice versa. In this framework, valued means the feature is given a value upon
selection, and unvalued means the feature must be valued during the
derivation by Agree.
According to Chomsky (2000, 2001), Agree is a head-head relation,
which allows the valuation and erasure of an uninterpretable feature, by
matching it with an identical feature of another item, in a sufficiently local
domain. When a syntactic object (a head) with unvalued features is merged
with another object (its complement), it serves as a Probe which searches for
a matching Goal (a constituent which has identical interpretable features with
which the Probe can agree). Matching of the features of the Probe under
identity with features of the Goal is sufficient to delete the uninterpretable
features on the Probe, rendering movement unnecessary. According to this
conception, Agree is driven by uninterpretable features on the Probe, which
must be deleted for legibility. In other words, the Probe represents the
element which seeks to be determined, while the Goal is the element which
satisfies the Probe. For minimal computation, a Probe should search the
smallest possible domain, namely its c-command domain, to find its Goal.
The relation Agree is established between a Probe and a Goal if there is no
element closer to the Probe than the Goal with the relevant feature values. In
addition, when the Probe bears an Extended Projection Principle [EPP] 3
feature, the movement of the Goal will be triggered.
3
By convention, features are enclosed in square brackets and often abbreviated.
58 Yi-An Lin
Agree plays an important role in A-movement and Case assignment.

The functional head of the Tense Phrase (TP), being an active Probe by virtue
of its uninterpretable and unvalued [Person] ([PERS]) and [Number]
([NUM]) features, searches for an active nominal Goal (by virtue of its
uninterpretable and unvalued [CASE] feature) to match and delete its [PERS]
and [NUM] features and to satisfy its [EPP] feature by the movement of the
Goal. In turn, the unvalued [CASE] feature of the Goal is valued (and
deleted) by a finite [Tense] ([TNS]) feature carried by the head of TP, which
is fully specified for the [PERS] and [NUM] features. In addition, Chomsky
claims that the [EPP] feature on T can attract an expletive such as there,
which carries only the [PERS] feature. Hence, he assumes that T attracts a
constituent agreeing with T in at least one of the [PERS] and [NUM]
features.
2.2. Agreement and Tense Omission Model
The Agreement and Tense Omission Model of SLI originates from Wexler’s
(1994, 1996) studies on clause structure and inflection in young TD children.
The grammar of TD children can be captured in terms of Wexler’s Optional
Infinitive (OI) stage. He claims that TD children undergo a protracted stage
during which they alternate between producing finite and infinitive forms of
verbs in contexts where finite forms are required in adult grammar. In
addition, TD children at the OI stage tend to omit auxiliaries and copula BE 4
in finite contexts. Further, Wexler asserts that optional infinitives arise
because of the underspecification or omission of the tense feature in the
clause representation.
Adopting Wexler’s idea, Rice, Wexler and Cleave (1995) propose that
children with SLI go through an Extended Optional Infinitives (EOI) stage in
which a similar pattern of optional infinitives is found until they are 7 or 8
years of age. Rice and her collaborators propose that the grammar of children
with SLI is characterized in terms of the tense omission model. They predict
that children with SLI will display limited proficiency in the use of
morphemes marking tense, while leaving other inflectional morphemes
unaffected. In addition, when these children do specify the tense feature, they
respect all its morphosyntactic properties. That is, when children with SLI
use tense morphemes or auxiliaries, they use them correctly in the same way
as TD children do. Nevertheless, such a tense-deficit hypothesis wrongly
predicts that children with SLI never use accusative subjects with past tense
verbs.
In later work, Schütze and Wexler (1996) claim that optional infinitives
can result from the underspecification or omission of either the tense or
4
In this chapter, the capitalized word is the label for various forms of that word.
agreement features (or both) in a child’s structural representation of a

sentence. As a result, Wexler, Schütze and Rice (1998) revise their account
of SLI with a two-factor theory. They assume that SLI involves a syntactic
feature deficit leading to the optional specification of [TNS] and [Agreement]
([AGR]) features in obligatory contexts. They refer to their model as ATOM.
Further, they argue that the case-marking of subjects as nominative (Nom) or
non-Nom by children with SLI directly correlates with whether or not the
agreement is marked on verbs. In other words, the case-marking difficulties
of SLI are a secondary effect of problems with verb agreement.
From their study, Wexler and his collaborators report that English-
speaking children with SLI (ESLI children) are more likely to use non-Nom
subjects and to produce non-Nom subjects at a much later age than TD
children. In addition, they find that both the TD and SLI children virtually
always correctly mark the case of the object. Moreover, their data show that
the optional occurrence of Nom and non-Nom subjects is correlated with the
optional occurrence of finite and non-finite verb forms. More specifically,
they point out that non-Nom subjects almost never appear with agreeing
auxiliary/main verbs that are inflected for both tense and agreement.
Therefore, Wexler and his colleagues take the subject case errors to be a
reflection of the OI stage.
In summary, Wexler and his collaborators draw the following main
conclusions from their study:
(i) children with SLI make more frequent case-marking errors with subjects
than Mean Length of Utterance (MLU)-matched TD children;
(ii) children with SLI use an accusative (Acc) form of subjects in contexts
where adults require a Nom form;
(iii) the case-marking of subjects is determined by whether or not clauses
contain an auxiliary or a main verb which agrees in person and number with
the subject;
(iv) children with SLI may leave verbs underspecified for [TNS] and/or
[AGR] features in finite contexts, resulting in the production of OI structures
with Acc subjects.
2.3. Phonetic Form Deficit Model
Arguing against van der Lely’s (2005) Deficit in Computational Grammar

Complexity (CGC) hypothesis, Lin (2006) proposes that individuals with SLI
do not have a deficit in their syntactic representation. Instead, he argues that
ESLI children’s problems lie in the PF component, the interface between the
NS and the A-P system, for he finds that there is an asymmetry between
ESLI children’s performance with syntactic operations (i.e. phrasal
movement) and their performance with PF operations (i.e. head movement).
60 Yi-An Lin
For instance, children with SLI may have problems with auxiliary inversion
but leave Wh-movement intact. More specifically, Lin’s model makes the
following predictions:
(i) children with SLI may have problems with tense marking even though the
[TNS] feature is correctly specified on T;
(ii) children with SLI may have problems with agreement marking even
though the [PERS] and [NUM] features (or the [AGR] feature in ATOM) are
correctly specified on T;
(iii) children with SLI may have problems with case marking even though the
[CASE] feature of nominals is correctly specified;
(iv) children with SLI will not face any problems with A-movement and Wh-
movement;
(v) children with SLI may experience difficulties with auxiliary inversion or
DO-support.
3. Methodology
In order to determine the nature of grammatical errors made by ESLI

children, the Leonard corpus in CHILDES is used for the current study. This
corpus contains transcripts of the utterances of eleven monolingual ESLI
children ranging in age from 3 years 8 months to 5 years 7 months. Four of
the children are girls, seven are boys. All these children pass a hearing
screening and a test of oral-motor function. They also show no evidence of
neurological impairment and display no symptoms of emotional disorders.
Their IQ scores on the Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter International
Performance Scale are all above 85. Moreover, their scores on the composite
(Picture Vocabulary, Oral Vocabulary, Grammatical Understanding,
Sentence Imitation and Grammatical Completion) of the Test of Language
Development-Primary or the Test of Early Language Development are more
than one standard deviation below the mean for their chronological age. The
speech samples in this corpus were obtained while the child was playing with
an adult female research assistant. Common toys and picture books form the
main source of conversation. The transcripts only include the utterances of
the child (MacWhinney 1995). The analysis of all the data retrieved is
assisted by a computer programme named Computerised Language Analysis
(CLAN).
4. Results and discussion

4.1. Tense marking and agreement marking
Since ATOM argues that children with SLI may sometimes leave verbs
underspecified for the [TNS] feature in finite contexts, it predicts that the
ESLI children in the Leonard corpus will exhibit an impairment in tense

marking. Upon examination of the data, it indeed appears that all eleven
ESLI children commit omission errors in tense marking, as shown in (1).
(1) a. It stop. (Child A)
‘It stopped’
b. I find it right there. (Child B)
‘I found it right there’
A detailed summary of each child’s performance with past-tense

marking is given in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Summary of Each Child’s Performance with Past-tense Marking
Number of
Number of
obligatory Percentage use of
verbs overtly
Child contexts for inflected forms in
marked for
past-tense obligatory contexts
past tense
marking
A 148 46 31.08%
B 29 13 44.83%
C 157 99 63.46%
D 110 61 55.45%
E 95 62 65.26%
F 127 75 59.06%
G 58 53 91.37%
H 26 14 53.85%
I 29 12 41.38%
J 81 37 45.67%
K 31 8 25.81%
5
Overall 891 480 53.87% (SD =17.24)
As shown in Table 1, the children’s mean correctness score for past-tense

marking on main lexical verbs is 53.87% (SD=17.24). More specifically, only
one of these children, namely Child G, shows no difficulties in marking past
tense on main verbs.
Since ATOM also claims that SLI involves an optional specification of
the [AGR] feature in obligatory contexts, it predicts that the ESLI children
will experience difficulty in the use of the third-person, singular, present
tense (3SgPres) morpheme –s and the use of inflected forms of auxiliaries,
which include am, are and is for the auxiliary BE, have and has for the
auxiliary HAVE, and do and does for the auxiliary DO.
5
SD stands for standard deviation.
62 Yi-An Lin
The corpus data reveals that all the ESLI children frequently use bare
verb forms in contexts where the 3SgPres –s is required. Nine of the children
show difficulties in marking 3SgPres on main lexical verbs. A detailed
summary of each child’s performance with agreement marking on main
lexical verbs is given in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Summary of Each Child’s Agreement Marking on Main Lexical Verbs
Number
Number of obligatory of Percentage use of suffix –s
Child
contexts for suffix –s s-inflected in obligatory contexts
verbs
A 133 54 40.60%
B 49 7 14.29%
C 67 43 64.18%
D 40 13 32.50%
E 35 12 34.29%
F 63 44 69.84%
G 45 14 31.11%
H 81 15 18.52%
I 18 4 22.22%
J 47 1 2.13%
K 23 2 8.70%
Overall 601 209 34.78% (SD=20.74)
Furthermore, the ESLI children all commit agreement marking errors on

auxiliaries. Some examples are given in (2):
(2) a. Incorrectly inflected finite form:
The rabbits is little. (Child A)
‘The rabbits are little’
b. Bare non-finite form:
This be not the doctor. (Child H)
‘This is not the doctor’
c. Omitted/null auxiliary:
It not this one. (Child J)
‘It is not this one’
The data indicates that six of the ESLI children mark agreement on
auxiliaries below chance level. A detailed summary of each child’s
performance with agreement marking on the auxiliaries is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Each Child’s Agreement Marking on Auxiliaries

Number of Number of Number of Number of Percentage
correctly wrongly bare omitted use of
Child inflected inflected non-finite Auxiliaries agreement
Auxiliaries finite Auxiliaries marking on
Auxiliaries Auxiliaries
A 254 3 0 154 61.80%
B 16 0 5 285 5.23%
C 270 0 5 113 69.59%
D 127 14 3 267 30.90%
E 223 0 0 159 58.38%
F 350 0 0 88 79.91%
G 71 0 3 361 16.32%
H 92 0 4 295 23.53%
I 163 0 0 119 57.80%
J 24 17 3 313 6.72%
K 14 0 0 134 9.46%
37.11%
Overall 1384 34 23 2288
(SD=26.52)
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the mean percentage group scores for the
agreement marking on main verbs and auxiliaries are 34.78% (SD = 20.74)
and 37.11% (SD = 26.52), both below chance level.
Although ATOM correctly predicts the ESLI children’s difficulties with
tense and agreement marking, a theoretical problem with the account arises.
The assumption that the functional head T, which only contains the
uninterpretable [AGR] feature and the interpretable [TNS] feature, can be
underspecified for the [TNS] feature, violates Chomsky’s (1995) claim that
syntactic structures must not contain heads to which no semantic
interpretation can be assigned. Since the interpretable [TNS] feature on T
provides information about the time at which an event takes place, T cannot
be assigned any semantic interpretation if the [TNS] feature is not specified,
which in turn causes the derivation to crash at the semantic interface
(Radford 2005a).
However, given the fact that the ESLI children in question have no
problems with Nom Case assignment, as shown in 4.2, their difficulties with
tense and agreement marking should be attributed to a problem of retrieving
correct verb forms, given Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) assumption that the
unvalued [CASE] feature of subjects is valued as Nom (and is deleted) by a
64 Yi-An Lin
finite [TNS] feature carried by a T head fully specified for the [PERS] and
[NUM] features. In other words, these children’s difficulties with tense and
agreement marking cannot result from a syntactic deficit which causes the
underspecification of the [TNS] and/or [AGR] feature(s).
In contrast, PFDM treats these tense marking and agreement marking
errors as spellout errors. That is to say, these errors result from a problem of
retrieving correct verb forms in the PF component.
4.2. Case marking
Since ATOM asserts that the case marking of subjects is determined by

whether clauses contain an auxiliary or a main verb which agrees in person
and number with the subject or not, it predicts that (i) Nom subject pronouns
always co-occur with verbal forms specified for agreement and that (ii) the
subject pronoun will be in the default Acc form with verbal forms not
specified for agreement.
However, the data reveals that the ESLI children seldom use non-Nom
subjects in their spontaneous speech, and the mean percentage use of the
correct Nom case is 97.26% (SD=2.67). More details for the case marking on
pronouns by each child are shown in Table 4 6.
Table 4. Summary of Each Child’s Percentage Use of the Correct Case

Percentage of use of the Percentage use of Percentage use of the
Child
correct Nom case the correct Acc case correct Gen case
Nb % Nb % Nb %
A 254/257 98.83 47/47 100 74/78 94.87
B 172/174 98.85 11/11 100 36/37 97.30
C 318/319 99.69 10/10 100 70/70 100
D 72/76 94.74 51/51 100 49/66 74.24
E 237/237 100 52/52 100 116/118 98.31
F 337/339 99.41 53/53 100 71/72 98.61
G 313/340 92.06 24/24 100 38/42 90.48
H 108/114 94.74 10/10 100 23/23 100
I 87/92 94.57 19/19 100 15/15 100
J 266/290 91.72 29/29 100 65/73 89.04
K 71/73 97.26 24/24 100 26/26 100
2235/2311 97.26 330/330 100 583/620 94.03
Overall
(SD=2.67) (SD=2.9)
6
See Appendix for the raw frequency of personal pronoun forms used by each
child.
These figures indicate that the children’s performance on case marking is

adult-like, which suggests that the few case-marking errors may be spellout
errors rather than Case assignment errors. However, ATOM successfully
predicts that the ESLI children will not have any problem with the case
marking on personal pronoun objects, since 100% of adult-like case marking
on personal pronoun objects is found for all the eleven ESLI children.
If the Nom Case of subjects is indeed assigned by the specification of
[AGR] feature on T, as claimed by ATOM, the overall high percentage use of
the correct Nom case by the ESLI children suggests that a high percentage
implementation of agreement marking should be found as well. However,
this expectation is not borne out by the data presented in 4.1.
On the other hand, PFDM can offer a more principled explanation for
the children’s poor performance with tense and agreement markings but good
performance with case marking. According to PFDM, both the [TNS] and
[AGR] features on T are specified in the NS, leading to the correct Nom Case
assignment that consequently results in correct Nom case marking. The
problem for the ESLI children is how the PF component spells out the [TNS]
and [AGR] features on lexical verbs and auxiliaries.
4.3. A-movement
Although it does not make any specific prediction about ESLI children’s
performance with A-movement, ATOM claims that they frequently
underspecify the [AGR] feature in obligatory contexts, which should result in
frequent A-movement errors, given Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) proposal that
agreement plays a key role in A-movement.
However, the corpus data suggests that ESLI children do not commit
any word order errors in obligatory contexts where A-movement is required.
Instead, the children correctly move subjects to the specifier position of TP
even when they commit other errors, such as tense/agreement marking errors
and auxiliary-omission errors, shown in the sentences below:
(3) It not work (Child B)
(4) He not clean (Child G)
(5) It not working (Child H)
(6) This be not the doctor (Child H)
According to Chomsky’s (2000, 2001, 2004) theory of Case assignment and

A-movement, the fact that these ESLI children do not have any problem with
A-movement suggests that they specify the [PERS] and/or [NUM] feature on
T. Moreover, since the children correctly mark the subjects as Nom case, it
also indicates that the agreement features on T are fully specified. However,
66 Yi-An Lin
agreement marking errors and auxiliary-omission errors are found in the

sentences above. ATOM cannot provide an explanation for these findings.
On the other hand, PFDM can give an explanation for the findings.
According to PFDM, all these agreement marking errors and auxiliary-
omission errors are merely spellout errors. In other words, the agreement
marking errors and auxiliary-omission errors are not due to the
underspecification of the [AGR] feature (or the [PERS] and [NUM] features
in the current theory) on T in the NS. Instead, these errors result from a
problem retrieving the correct verb forms in the PF component.
4.4. Auxiliary inversion
Although it does not make any specific prediction about ESLI children’s
performance with auxiliary inversion, ATOM maintains that children with
SLI sometimes underspecify [TNS] and/or [AGR] feature(s) on T. This
should lead to problems with auxiliary inversion, since current thinking
within Minimalism suggests that auxiliary inversion is triggered by either an
affix on complementiser (C) carrying a [TNS] feature requiring it to attract
the closest head marked for tense (Pesetsky and Torrego 2001; Radford
2004) or an affix on C carrying a set of strong agreement features requiring it
to attract the closest head specified for agreement features (Radford 2005b).
More specifically, if tense is the factor triggering auxiliary inversion,
children’s performance on auxiliary inversion is expected to reflect their
performance on tense marking. If agreement is the factor triggering inversion,
their performance on auxiliary inversion should have the same frequency as
agreement marking.
It is interesting to explore the extent to which ESLI children’s
performance on auxiliary inversion can be explained in terms of ATOM and
the theories for the mechanism of auxiliary inversion. Examination of the
Leonard corpus data reveals that the overall frequency with which these
children supply auxiliary inversion (52.45%) is more similar to the rate at
which they supply tense (53.87%) than to the rate at which they supply
agreement (34.78%). Furthermore, according to the findings in the previous
sections, the [AGR] feature seems to be unimpaired in the ESLI children’s
grammars. Therefore, their problems with auxiliary inversion seem to result
from the underspecification of the [TNS] feature on C.
However, following Chomsky’s (2001) proposal that auxiliary
inversion, a T-to-C head movement, is a PF operation, PFDM explains the
children’s poor performance with tense marking, agreement marking and
auxiliary inversion in a more principled way. According to PFDM, neither
the [TNS] nor the [AGR] feature is underspecified in the NS. The major
problem for children with SLI lies in spelling out the [TNS] and [AGR]
features on verbs in the PF component, which leads to their problems with

tense marking, agreement marking and auxiliary inversion.
5. Concluding remarks
In this study, two competing accounts of SLI, namely Wexler, Schütze and
Rice’s (1998) Agreement and Tense Omission Model (ATOM) and Lin’s
(2006) Phonetic Form Deficit Model (PFDM), are evaluated on the basis of
the Leonard corpus in CHILDES. In the previous sections, it has been shown
that the ESLI children in the Leonard corpus face difficulties in the use of the
3SgPres morpheme –s and the past tense verb forms, as predicted by ATOM
and PFDM. Furthermore, the data suggests that case marking is unimpaired
in these children’s grammars and that the ESLI children do not have any
problem with A-movement. Both findings suggest that tense and agreement
marking errors are not due to the underspecification of the [TNS] and [AGR]
features on T as proposed by ATOM. If the [TNS] and [AGR] features on T
were indeed underspecified, the assignment of Nom Case should become a
problem, leading to the incorrect case marking on subjects. In addition, the
underspecification of [TNS] and [AGR] features on T should result in the
non-occurrence of A-movement for these ESLI children. However, these are
not the findings, as shown in 4.2 and 4.3. Moreover, given the fact that the
children have problems with auxiliary inversion, as reported in 4.4, it is
suggested that the tense and agreement marking errors are merely spellout
errors, for these three types of errors, namely tense marking, agreement
marking and auxiliary inversion, are all PF operations instead of syntactic
operations.
References
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework, in: R. Martin; D.
Michaels; J. Uriagereka, (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in
Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge: MIT Press, 89-155.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase, in: M. Kenstowicz, (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy, in: A. Belletti, (ed.),
Structure and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, New
York: Oxford University Press, 104-131.
Eisenbeiss, S.; Bartke, S.; Clahsen, H. (2005). Structural and lexical case in
child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically-
developing children, Language Acquisition 13: 3-32.
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment, Cambridge:
MIT Press. Leonard, L. (2004). Specific language impairment in
68 Yi-An Lin
children, in: R. D. Kent, (ed.), The MIT encyclopedia of communication

disorders, Cambridge: MIT Press, 402-404.
Lin, Y.-A. (2006). Against the Deficit in Computational Grammatical
Complexity Hypothesis: A corpus-based study, Concentric: Studies in
Linguistics 32: 59-70.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk,
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pesetsky, D.; Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and
consequences, in: M. Kenstowicz, (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
Cambridge: MIT Press, 355-426.
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2005a). Children’s English: Principles-and-Parameters
perspectives, Ms., University of Essex, Colchester.
Radford, A. (2005b). English syntax revisited: An introduction. Ms.,
University of Essex, Colchester.
Rice, M.; Wexler, K.; Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a
period of extended optional infinitive, Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research 38: 850-863.
Schütze, C.; Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root
infinitives, in: A. Stringfellow; D. Cahana-Amitay; E. Hughes; A.
Zukowski, (eds), Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University
conference on language development, Somerville: Cascadilla Press,
670-681.
van der Lely, H. (2005). Grammatical-SLI and the computational
grammatical complexity hypothesis, Revue Fréquences 17: 13-20.
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of
derivations in child grammar, in: D. Lightfoot; N. Hornstein, (eds), Verb
movement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 305-350.
Wexler, K. (1996). The development of inflection in a biologically based
theory of language acquisition, in: M. Rice, (ed.), Toward a genetics of
language, Mahwah: Erlbaum, 113-144.
Wexler, K.; Schütze, C.; Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI
and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns Omission Model,
Language Acquisition 7: 317-344.
Appendix
Raw Frequency of Personal Pronoun Forms Used by Each Child
Child Type Nom Weak Gen Strong Gen Acc
1Sg I = 125 my = 39 my = 2 me = 30
me = 2
1Pl --- our = 2 --- ---
2 you=53 your = 10 yours = 2 you = 11
3MSg he = 124 his = 18 --- him = 14
A
him = 1 him = 2
3FSg she = 1 her = 1 --- her = 3
3NSg it = 35 its = 2 --- it = 101
3Pl they = 4 --- --- them = 16
them = 6
I = 170 my = 26 mine=7 me = 8
1Sg
me = 2 my = 1
1Pl --- --- --- ---
2 you = 10 --- --- ---
B
3MSg --- his = 2 --- him = 2
3FSg --- her = 1 --- her = 1
3NSg it = 20 --- --- it = 52
3Pl they = 2 --- --- them = 18
I = 203 my = 21 mine = 1 me = 4
1Sg
me = 1
we = 25 our = 2 --- we = 1 7
C 1Pl
us = 4
2 you = 67 your = 1 --- you = 5
3MSg he = 75 his = 45 --- him = 2
7
This item may be a performance error because the child made a self-correction
immediately in the next sentence. Thus, it is excluded from the count of his
performance on case-marking.
70 Yi-An Lin
3FSg she = 9 --- --- ---

3NSg it = 42 --- --- it = 69
they = 6 --- --- them = 68
3Pl
them = 23
I = 56 my = 27 mine = 4 me = 30
1Sg
me = 3
1Pl we = 6 --- --- us = 1
2 you = 32 --- --- you = 7
he = 5 his = 4 --- him = 18
D 3MSg
him = 1 him = 17
3FSg --- her = 13 hers = 1 her = 2
3NSg it = 7 --- --- it = 38
they = 5 --- --- them = 8
3Pl
them = 9
I = 190 my = 66 mine = 1 me = 26
1Sg
me = 2
1Pl we = 21 our = 13 --- ---
2 you = 57 your = 19 --- you = 28
E
3MSg he = 12 his = 6 --- him = 5
3FSg she = 5 her = 10 hers = 1 her = 21
3NSg it = 37 --- --- it = 94
3Pl they = 9 --- --- them = 36
I = 150 my = 16 mine = 6 me = 20
1Sg
me = 1 my = 1
1Pl we = 5 our = 2 --- ---
2 you = 25 your = 2 yours = 1 you = 3
F he = 168 his = 32 his = 1 him = 12
3MSg
him = 1
3FSg she = 5 her = 10 hers = 1 her = 21
3NSg it = 38 --- --- it = 116
3Pl they = 9 --- --- them = 36
1Sg I = 269 my = 24 mine = 2 me = 20

1Pl we = 40 our = 1 --- ---
2 you = 39 your = 1 --- you = 6
he = 2 his = 1 --- him = 1
3MSg
him = 18 him = 4
G
she = 1 her = 8 hers = 1 her = 3
3FSg
her = 9
3NSg it = 62 --- --- it = 56
they = 1 --- --- them = 24
3Pl
them = 9
I = 78 my = 10 mine = 2 me = 8
1Sg
me = 4
1Pl we = 9 --- --- ---
2 you = 40 your = 7 yours = 1 you = 11
He = 14 his = 1 --- him = 2
H 3MSg
him = 2
3FSg she = 1 her = 1 --- ---
3NSg it = 36 --- --- it = 56
they = 6 their = 1 --- them = 7
3Pl
them = 2
1Sg I = 83 my = 11 --- me = 3
1Pl we = 1 --- --- ---
2 you = 8 your = 1 --- you = 9
he = 3 his = 1 --- ---
I 3MSg
him=4
3FSg her = 1 her = 2 --- ---
3NSg it = 10 --- --- it = 16
3Pl them = 3 --- --- them = 2
I = 189 my = 51 mine = 4 me = 17
1Sg
J me = 1
1Pl we = 70 our = 3 --- ---
72 Yi-An Lin
2 you = 35 your = 5 --- you = 12

him = 21 his = 1 --- him = 12
3MSg
him = 8
she = 1 her = 1 --- ---
3FSg
her = 3
3NSg it = 7 --- --- it = 20
they = 5 --- --- them = 64
3Pl
them = 37
I = 70 my = 22 mine = 1 me = 18
1Sg
me = 2
1Pl --- --- --- ---
2 you = 2 your = 1 --- ---
K
3MSg him = 1 his = 1 him = 6
3FSg --- her = 2 --- ---
3NSg it = 1 --- --- it = 9
3Pl them = 5 --- --- them = 1
The development of L1 Russian tense-aspect
morphology in Russian-Hebrew sequential bilinguals
Olga GUPOL
Susan ROTHSTEIN
Sharon ARMON-LOTEM
Bar Ilan University, Israel
1. Introduction
The present study addresses the influence of extensive exposure to L2

Hebrew on L1 Russian development of tense and aspect morphology. This
study of L1 Russian tense and aspect acquisition is conducted with 40
Russian-Hebrew sequential bilingual children with normal language
development aged 4;0 - 4;11 and 7;0 - 8;0 who are fluent in both languages.
For most children L2 Hebrew is the dominant language.
Russian has a rich morphological marking of aspect while Hebrew has
no morphological manifestation of grammatical aspect. Previous studies of
longitudinal spontaneous speech data (Armon-Lotem, Gagarina and Gupol
2006; Gagarina, Armon-Lotem and Gupol 2005, 2007) showed that the
verbal morphosyntactic development of bilinguals’ L1 Russian, with L2
Hebrew, is rather similar to younger Russian monolinguals’ . Nonetheless, it
was claimed that Russian-Hebrew bilinguals aged (3;5 - 5;4) make some
unique errors in the temporality domain, which can be attributed to the
bilingual setting and are atypical for monolingual development.
The present study examines the structure of L1 Russian temporality
morphology in Russian-Hebrew sequential bilinguals through an elicited
narrative. The focus is on the use of anchor tense and aspect, the location of
events on the time span while relating the events temporally, and the
morphological encoding of lexical-semantic properties of the situations in the
verbal predicates. Our findings indicate that Russian-Hebrew bilingual
children have a monolingual-like temporality make-up with respect to tense
and aspect anchoring. However, the bilingual development of L1 tense-aspect
morphology is characterized by a mismatch between form and function
(Berman and Slobin 1994). Though the Russian-Hebrew bilinguals show
knowledge of the tense and aspect morphology, i.e. aspectual form, they lack
the monolingual knowledge of aspectual function, i.e. they do not show
mastery in encoding the semantic properties of the situations in the verbal
predicates even by the age of 8.
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 73-106

74 Olga Gupol, Susan Rothstein & Sharon Armon-Lotem
1.1 Russian and Hebrew verbal morphosyntax
Russian (a Slavic language of the Indo-European language family) and

Hebrew (a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family) have verbal
morphosyntactic systems which are typologically different with respect to the
morphological patterns expressing grammatical and lexical characteristics of
verbal predicates. Though both Russian and Hebrew verbal predicates are
characterized by reflexivity, transitivity / intransitivity, mood, voice, three
tenses (past, present, and future), gender, number and person, they are
different with respect to (1) the fundamental principles of stem-inflection
combination rules across the grammatical categories, (2) gender assignment
by tense and (3) morphological aspect marking. These three distinctions
constitute the contrastive domains in Russian and Hebrew verbal
morphosyntax.
The rich grammatical morphology of stem-inflection formations
constitutes the distinguishing feature of Russian verbal morphosyntax. Both
stems and inflections, which never occur separately, undergo morphological
processes in Russian, expressing the grammatical properties of verbal
predicates. Russian verbs, which are always composed of a stem and an
inflection or inflections, have 45 various morphological inflectional verb
classes (Dressler and Gagarina 1999; Gagarina 2002a) and two basic types of
conjugation, which are characterized by different sets of inflections for the
present and non-analytical future tense marking. These verbs are
characterized by:
(1) Subject-verb agreement for:
a) 1st, 2nd or 3rd person in present and future tenses (non-past tenses),
b) feminine, masculine and neuter genders in past tense forms,
c) singular or plural numbers across past, future and present forms.
(2) Rich morphological marking of all finite and non-finite verbal forms for
either imperfective or perfective aspect by:
a) suffixation (prygat’IMPF ‘to jump’ vs. prygnut’PRF ‘to jump once’),
b) prefixation (pisat’IMPF ‘to write’ vs. napisat’PRF ‘to write’),
c) stress shift (otrezat’IMPF ‘to cut off’ vs. otrezat’PRF ‘to cut off’) or
d) suppletion (lovit’IMPF ‘to catch’ vs. pojmat’PRF ‘to catch’).
The morphological correlation of perfectives and imperfectives is bi-
directional in Russian, i.e. perfective verbs can be formed from bare
imperfective forms (begat’IMPF ‘to run’ and pobegat’PRF ‘to run for a while’)
and imperfective verbs can be derived from the bare perfective forms
(opozdat’PRF ‘to come late’ and opazdyvat’IMPF ‘to come late’). There is a
The development of L1 Russian tense-aspect morphology 75
category of bi-aspectual verbs in Russian that have the same form for both
perfective and imperfective aspects: e.g., kaznit’IMPF / PRF ‘to execute’,
amputirovat’IMPF / PRF ‘to amputate’ and others (Forsyth 1970; Čertkova
1996). This category once constituted 4.1% of the verbal lexicon, but has
since increased due to borrowing(Gagarina 2002a; Ožegov 1989; Čertkova
1996).
The majority of Russian verbs stand in aspectual imperfective-perfective
opposition relationships reflected by verbal morphology, in which one
member is morphologically marked, while the other is unmarked (Borik
2002). The unmarked form is called the base form. Normally, the base form
is the imperfective, although some verbs have an unmarked base form which
is perfective, from which imperfectives can be derived via secondary
imperfectivization (a process which applies also to derived perfective verbs).
It is important to note that Russian morphology allows derivation of multiple
perfective forms from a single imperfective base that can denote rather
different events in comparison with each other and with the base verb as in
examples 1 (a), 1 (b), 1(c) and 1(d):
(1) a. Ivan čitalIMPF / PAST knigu.
Ivan read / was reading a / the book.
b. Ivan počitalPRF / PAST kniguACTIVITY.
Ivan read / has read a book for a while
c. Ivan pročital PRF / PAST kniguACCOMPLISHMENT.
Ivan read / has read a / the book.
d. Ivan dočital PRF / PAST kniguACCOMPLISHMENT.
Ivan read / has read a / the book up (to the end).
The perfective verbs in examples 1.b. (počitat’ PRF ‘to read for a while’), 1.c.
(pročitat’ PRF ‘to read’) and 1.d. (dočitat’ PRF ‘to read up to the end’) are
derived from the imperfective base verb čitat’ IMPF ‘to read’ in 1.a. and stand
in opposite aspectual relations with it: počital PRF / PAST ‘read for a while’ in
1.b denotes a delimited activity (Padučeva 1996, 2008) with an explicit
starting and terminal point, while pročital PRF / PAST ‘read’ in 1.c. and dočital
PRF / PAST
‘read up to the end’ in 1.d. denote completed accomplishments with
obvious terminal boundaries as well. In contrast to both perfective readings,
the morphologically unmarked imperfective counterpart in 1.a. (čital knigu
IMPF / PAST
‘read / was reading a / the book’) does not have explicit terminal
boundaries encoded in the verbal morphology. Nevertheless, 1.a. allows
ongoing, incomplete or completed interpretations as can be seen in 2.a., 2.b.
and 2.c., respectively:
(2) a. Ivan čital IMPF / PAST knigu s dvux do pyati.
Ivan was reading a / the book from two to five.
b. Ivan čital IMPF / PAST knigu, no ne zakončil [čitat'] ejo.

Ivan read a / the book, but did not finish [to read] it.
c. Ivan čital IMPF / PAST knigu i zakončil [čitat'] ejo.
Ivan read a / the book and finished [to read] it.
Moreover, the interpretations of the imperfective and perfective

predicates in examples 1 and 2 sufficiently differ from each other with
respect to their inherent lexical properties. While the perfective / imperfective
distinction is a property of grammatical aspect in Russian, the verbs in
Russian can also be classified in terms of their lexical classes independently
of their perfective / imperfective status. One of the most prominent
classifications of verbs into lexical classes according to their lexical
properties is Vendler’s system of dividing verbs into states, activities,
accomplishments and achievements, which are characterized by the atelic /
telic properties, i.e. eventualities having an open or natural endpoint,
respectively (Vendler 1967). Even though this classification is widely used in
language acquisition and semantics with respect to English, German, Dutch,
Greek, Korean and other languages, there are numerous debates in linguistics
as to whether a direct application of Vendler's classification can take place in
Russian (Braginsky and Rothstein 2008; Brecht 1985; Filip and Rothstein
2005; Padučeva 1996, 2008 among others). The major question is whether
the Vendlerian classes are subsumed under the perfective / imperfective
distinction, and in particular whether accomplishments are always perfective
or whether there are imperfective accomplishments. 1.c. (pročital knigu PRF /
PAST
‘read a / the book’) and 1.d. (dočital knigu PRF / PAST ‘read a / the book up
to the end’) are plausibly accomplishments according to Vendler's
classification, but if accomplishments are to be associated with telicity as is
often the case (see e.g. Dowty 1979, Rappaport Hovav 2008), it is not clear
how to classify the base imperfective verb in 1.a., 2.a., 2.b., 2.c. (čital
kniguIMPF / PAST ‘read / was reading a / the book’), which can denote both telic
and atelic situations.
Braginsky and Rothstein (2008) discuss the relevance of the Vendlerian
classes to Russian, arguing that the class of lexical items, which in English
are traditionally analyzed as accomplishments, occurs in both the perfective
and imperfective aspects. They follow Krifka (1998) and Rothstein (2004)
who argue that, although in English accomplishments are naturally associated
with telic readings (unless their direct objects are mass or count), their
characterizing property is that they are inherently incremental. Braginsky and
Rothstein show that, because of this incrementality, accomplishments in
Russian are the only Vendlerian class that can be modified by incremental
adverbials such as postepenno ‘gradually’ and X-za-X ‘bit by bit’, where X
can be filled by any noun (e.g. spoon by spoon, floor by floor). They further
show that the Russian correlates of predicates such as stroit’ IMPF / postroit’
PRF
dom ‘to build a / the house’ or čitat’IMPF / pročitat’ PRF knigu ‘to read a /
the book’ can be modified by these incremental modifiers in both perfective
and imperfective aspects, whereas activity predicates cannot, and take this as
evidence that accomplishments appear in both grammatical aspects.
For the present study, we will assume the distribution of Russian
imperfective and perfective verbal predicates into the four traditional
Vendlerian lexical classes, based on the discussion in Rothstein (2004).
Following Rothstein (2004) and Braginsky and Rothstein (2008), we assume
that accomplishments are incremental predicates which bring about a new
state of affairs, and occur as imperfectives (a base form) and perfectives -
usually a derived form- (est’ sandwichIMPF ‘to eat a / the sandwich’ vs. s’est’
sandwich PRF ‘to eat up a / the sandwich’). Activities are atelic verbal
predicates that do not display incremental structure, that occur in the
imperfective (a base form), and may also occur in the perfective as bounded
non-incremental events in the so called ‘delimitate activity form’ (Paducheva
1996, 2008; Braginsky and Rothstein 2008): guljat’IMPF ‘to walk’ vs.
poguljat’PRF ‘to walk for a while’. Achievements are verbal predicates that
denote instantaneous changes, and thus normally heads of telic VPs, since the
dimensions of the change determine the interval at which the event holds.
Unlike accomplishments and activities base forms, the base form of
achievements is perfective, though achievements can be used as imperfectives
in the case of the iterative or rare progressive reading (otkryt’ dver’ PRF ‘to
open a / the door’ vs. otkryvat’ dver’IMPF ‘to open a / the door (at least
once)’), with the imperfective derived from the perfective form via secondary
imperfection. States are not inherently measurable, and thus do not heads of
telic VPs and occur in the imperfective only unless they have undergone
shifts in meaning (Rothstein 2004; Braginsky and Rothstein 2008): znat’IMPF
‘knew’. The perfective derived from the imperfective state undergoes a shift
in meaning and denotes an inchoative with the semantics of the achievement:
uznat’PRF ‘become aware’. States do not occur in the perfective in Russian. In
addition to the four Vendler classes, we identify a fifth class of semelfactives,
verbs such as prygnut’PRF ‘to jump once’ or stuknut’PRF ‘to knock once’,
which denote single very short non-iterated events. In English, these
semelfactives are homonymous with activity verbs. Semelfactives in Russian
occur in the perfective aspect only. Following Rothstein (2004, 2008a,
2008b), we assume that semelfactives are telic predicates, since they have a
defined non-instantaneous structure and an end point, even though they do
not naturally involve change.
With respect to the semantics of the perfective / imperfective distinction,
we assume, following Paducheva (1996), Mehlig (2005), and Filip and
Rothstein (2005) that the perfective is associated with a necessarily bounded
or complete reading, which we will refer to as telic, following Filip and
Rothstein (2005) who argue that the telicity of the perfective derives from the
fact that perfective verbs denote sets of events associated with a bounded
measure. The imperfective is associated with a number of unbounded
readings, as mentioned above i.e. iterative, incomplete or interrupted, and
ongoing perspective (i.e. ongoing at the perspective point of the utterance),
where the ongoing event can ultimately be complete or interrupted.
Unlike Russian verbs, Hebrew verbs have 4 typological stem bases,
which differ from one another due to the different position of the guttural
letters in the verbal stem. These stems appear traditionally in seven
derivational conjugations that assign to the same verbal root different lexical
meanings (Berman 1978). Hebrew verbs have subject-verb agreement for:
a) 1st, 2nd or 3rd persons in past and future tenses, unlike Russian,
b) feminine or masculine gender in all three tenses in contrast to
Russian,
c) singular or plural numbers across past, future and present forms.
Unlike Russian, Hebrew verbs have no morphological manifestation of
aspect, which is a lexical feature in Hebrew. The different morphological
representations of the verbal predicates in 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) only have
lexical representations as in example 3:
(3) Ivan karaPAST / TELIC / ATELIC et ha-sefer / sefer.
Ivan was reading / read / read for a while / has read a book.
That is, the inherent temporal properties of verbal predicates are not
lexicalized by means of morphology in Hebrew and can only be derived
compositionally, by means of adverbial modifiers, subordinate or adjacent
clauses, and their combinations. Recent studies on Hebrew aspectuality
provide evidence that Hebrew is sensitive to differences in Vendler’s classes
(Boneh and Doron 2005; Greenberg 2008; Tsarfaty 2004; Yitzchaki 2004).
The above overview of the Russian and Hebrew morphosyntactic
paradigms presents two rather different morphological systems, which are
available to the Russian-Hebrew bilingual and may cause the erroneous use
of verbal morphology in contrastive structures such as:
a) typologically different stem patterns,
b) two inflectional conjugation types in Russian versus five
derivational conjugation types in Hebrew,
c) different distribution of agreement morphology across tenses,
d) different gender systems, i.e. there is no neutral gender in Hebrew,
e) presence versus absence of the morphological marking of aspect.
These typological differences between the languages can thus influence the
acquisition of the verbal morphosyntax in bilingual children's L1 Russian.
Since the main difference between the two languages is the presence versus
absence of the morphological category of aspect, this difference can be a

major source of errors if L1 Russian verbal representation is influenced by
the L2 Hebrew.
Russian speakers choose between the perfective and imperfective forms
of verbal predicates so as to reflect correctly the properties of the predicates,
as is the case, for instance, in examples 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). The Hebrew
morphosyntactic system provides the bilinguals with a different system. In
Hebrew, speakers do not need to distinguish between perfective and
imperfective aspectually opposed forms, which reflect different properties of
the situations. Thus, it is suggested that Russian-Hebrew bilinguals might
adopt the Hebrew model and assume that they may just choose the form of a
Russian verb which is appropriate in terms of lexical class and tense as in
Hebrew. Hebrew verbal forms are semantically ambiguous with respect to
aspect, i.e. the same form of a verb is used to denote both complete and
incomplete events without making explicit reference to the temporal
boundaries of the situations. The Hebrew lexical equivalent for the situations
in 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) is the single universal form karaPAST sefer / et ha-sefer
‘read a / the book’. That is, Russian-Hebrew bilinguals might ignore aspect or
reidentify grammatical aspect as a super-lexical class and assign the wrong
semantics to aspect. They might tend to use the basic aspectual forms, i.e. the
imperfective forms for the states, accomplishments and activities and
perfective forms for the achievement and semelfactive situation types. In
addition, Russian-Hebrew bilinguals might also reidentify tense as marking
aspect, i.e. use past tense to mark telic situations and present tense to
represent the atelic situations.
1.2. Monolingual acquisition of tense and aspect
The acquisition of verbal morphology, and tense / aspect morphology in

particular, co-develops with other syntactic structures and is often mastered
by the age of three, in the monolingual framework crosslinguistically (Bloom
1994; Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Fitzenshaft and Tracy 1992; Loeb and Leonards
1991; Verrips and Weissenborn 1992). In Russian, as in other languages,
monolingual children start by using uninflected verbal forms in matrix
clauses (Root Infinitives-RIs), which are productive at the onset of verb
production, between the ages of 1;8 - 2;3. They are used parallel to the finite
forms marked for tense, agreement and aspect at the ages of 2;3 - 2;10, when
Russian monolinguals actively acquire verbal morphology, though the use of
RIs gradually decreases, while the percentage of the verbal utterances
increases and becomes adult-like during this time (Gagarina 2002b, 2004;
Kiebzak-Mandera, Smoczynska and Protassova 1997; Poupynin 1998). These
gradual acquisition processes yield agreement errors, stem formation
mistakes as well as conjugation errors, which are the main source of
monolingual errors during this time. These mistakes gradually decrease with
the increase in the complexity of verbal utterances in monolingual production
(Gagarina 2003).
Production studies of Russian monolinguals’ naturalistic data show that
the knowledge of imperfective and perfective verbal forms and a rule-
governed tense system are evident early on in children's production (Bar-
Shalom and Snyder 2001; Bar-Shalom 2002, 2003; Brun, Avrutin and
Babyonshev 1999; Gagarina 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2004; Gvozdev 1961 among
others). The early stages of tense / aspect acquisition are governed by the
semantic bias. Russian monolinguals show a preference for the use of the
perfective past with the naturally telic lexical classes of accomplishments and
achievements and imperfective present with atelic activity and state lexical
classes (Stoll 1998; Gagarina 2000). The production studies on the early
tense and aspect acquisition show that Russian monolinguals aged 1;6 - 2;11
(Bar-Shalom 2002) and 1;8 - 2;5 (Gagarina 2000, 2003, 2004a, 2004b) show
mastery of tense and aspect morphology. The use of aspectual counterparts
becomes rule governed by that age as we can see in example 4. adapted from
Gagarina (2004a):
(4) a. Mama stroilaPAST / IMPF / ATELIC / ACTIVITY.
Mother was building. (Vanya, 2; 4)
b. Ogromnyj postroilPAST / PRF / TELIC / ACCOMPLISHMENT, ogromnyj dom.
Huge built, huge house. (Vanya, 2; 3)
The acquisition of tense / aspect morphology co-occurs gradually with

other domains of verbal morphosyntax and is completed by the age of 3.
Nonetheless, children may still have rudiments of rote-learned forms, and
show it in, for example, single erroneous uses of alternation rules of the non-
productive inflectional classes, or production of inappropriate derived
aspectual morphology in the discourse contexts. The aspectual discourse is
completely acquired by the age of 5-6 among Russian monolinguals (Avrutin
1999; Ceytlin 2000; Gagarina 2003; Stoll 2001).
Studies conducted on Hebrew monolingual data showed parallel results
with respect to the production of verbal morphosyntax (Armon-Lotem and
Berman 2003; Berman 1999; Berman and Slobin 1994; Tsarfaty 2005). All
studies suggest that Hebrew verbal inflectional agreement / tense morphology
is acquired by the age of 2;6, while proficiency in the use of verbal
derivational morphology of conjugation types lags behind yielding
innovations until the age of 5. Armon-Lotem and Berman (2003), based on a
cross-sectional data analysis for children aged 1-3, found that the acquisition
of lexical aspect in Hebrew precedes the acquisition of inflectional marking
for gender, tense and person, which, in turn, are fully acquired by the age of
three. They, however, refer to lexical aspect as manifested by the early
selective use of tenses, rather than morphological aspect, which does not
exist in Hebrew. The data showed that young Hebrew monolinguals tend to
use telic predicates in the past tense and the atelic predicates in the present
tense. The acquisition of morphological expression of grammatical aspect is
not relevant, since there is no explicit manifestation of grammatical aspect in
Hebrew.
The development of tense and aspect in Russian and Hebrew
monolingual narratives is also similar. Anstatt (2005) and Berman and
Neeman (1994) reported that 80% of Russian monolinguals aged 5-10 and
67.7% of Hebrew monolinguals aged 3-11, respectively, favour anchor past
tense in their narratives (see figures 1 and 2). Russian monolinguals prefer to
tell stories in the perfective past tense (71 %). The present tense is not
favoured by Russian or Hebrew monolinguals in narratives.
Figure 1: Russian monolinguals Figure 2: Hebrew monolinguals (Berman
(Anstatt et al. 2005) et al. 1994)
12,5%
1% 19,8%
19%
9%
71%
61,6%
Present Imperfective past

Present Past Mixed
Perfective past Other
Berman and Neeman (1994) further claimed that monolingual

acquisition of the categories of tense and aspect in Hebrew is initially
characterized by no temporal anchor tense, with unsystematic shifting
between present and past, mainly at the ages of 3 and 4 (19.9%). By the age
of 5, monolinguals tend to use one dominant anchor tense, which is past for
most children, and provide clear evidence for temporal organization of
narration. By the age of 9, monolinguals use tense and aspect in adult-like
manner, while monolingual foundational grammatical structure is acquired, at
the latest, between the ages of 5 and 7 years (Berman et al. 1994; Meisel
2004).
1.3 The acquisition of tense and aspect in L1 Russian in the bilingual

framework
Studies of L1 Russian in Russian-German and Russian-English bilinguals

provide strong evidence in favor of non-monolingual acquisition, which is
influenced by the second language. (Anstatt 2005, Dieser et al. 2006,
Pereltsvaig 2004, 2005; Polinsky 1996, 1997, 2007). Russian-German
sequential bilingual children (Anstatt 2005) aged 4-13 demonstrate a clear
deviation in tense / tense-aspect use in narrations compared with Russian
monolingual children aged 5-10. Longitudinal studies of a bilingual German-
Russian speaking boy (aged 1;0 - 6;5) and a cross-sectional study of
recordings of 30 German-Russian speaking children aged 5-9 show that all
bilinguals exhibit an apparent delay within the morpho-syntactic domain
between 5 and 9 years (Dieser et al. 2006). This delay is expressed in a very
small and incomplete vocabulary, a low mean length of utterance and the use
of a significantly lower number of lexemes. Following Dieser et al. (2006),
the delay is characterized by the interrelation between different linguistic
domains such as morphology, syntax and lexis.
Similarly to L1 in Russian-German bilinguals, L1 of younger and older
Russian–English bilinguals, second generation immigrants born to Russian-
speaking families in the United States or brought there before puberty, shows
non-monolingual-like linguistic behavior. Pereltsvaig (2004, 2005) found that
American Russian exhibits attrition of the verbal morphosyntax which is
characterized by violations of subject-verb agreement, contextually
infelicitous tense and non-suitable aspect morphology. Pereltsvaig (2004)
claims that L1 Russian aspect loss among immigrants is governed by a
semantic bias, i.e. the use of verbal aspectual morphology encodes lexical
rather than grammatical aspect. Following Pereltsvaig (2004), neither
additional factors such as statistical frequency in the speakers’ first language
(L1) nor interference from their ambient second language (L2) affect the
course of the lexical first language attrition process.
Polinsky (1996, 1997) also found evidence for the lack of agreement
marking in syntactic constructions as well as erroneous use of aspectual
morphology in adult American Russian, where it cannot be considered as a
delay, but rather as an attrition of the L1 system. Polinsky found that
American Russian undergoes severe attrition. The choice of verbal forms in
American Russian is determined by the semantic cues. It was found that that
variety is characterized by a tendency to use the perfective predicates with
the naturally telic accomplishments and achievements as opposed to the use
of the imperfective predicates with the atelic states and activities (Pereltsvaig
2005; Polinsky 1997). Pereltsvaig (2004) suggested that the deviations in
bilingual aspect use are governed by semantic bias: verbal aspectual
morphology shifts to encode lexical rather than grammatical aspect. The
bilingual speakers of L1 Russian make ‘mistakes’, when lexical and

grammatical aspects do not coincide as shown in example 5 adapted from
Pereltsvaig (2004):
(5) a. Mne nravilos’PAST / IMPF / ATELIC / STATIVE v Princeton.
Me.DAT liked in Princeton.
(Immigrant Russian; context: describing a short visit to Princeton)
b. Mne ponravilosPAST / PRF / TELIC / ACHIEVEMENT’ v Prinstone.
Me.DAT liked in Princeton.
I liked it in Princeton. (Intended utterance)
Longitudinal production studies of L1 Russian verbal morphosyntax

acquisition by Russian-Hebrew sequential bilinguals aged 3;5 - 5;4 showed
comparable results (Armon-Lotem, Gagarina and Gupol (2006), Gagarina,
Armon-Lotem and Gupol 2005, 2007). L1 Russian verbal morphosyntax
acquisition is characterized by deviation in development, similarly to the
results of the studies of American Russian. Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) and
Gagarina et al. (2005, 2007) presented the developmental trends of verb
acquisition in Russian-Hebrew bilingual children who were recorded every
four months over a year (yielding 4 one hour recordings per child). It was
found that despite the fact that bilinguals display knowledge of verb
inflection for number, gender, person, tense, and aspect, their verbal
morphosyntax is still characterized by the non-grammatical use of RIs,
contextually infelicitous tense, lack of subject-verb agreement in person,
number, and gender, the wrong use of aspect and the wrong pattern formation
for the stem shift at the ages 3;5 - 5;4. The studies compared the bilinguals’
data with that of younger monolinguals and found that the bilinguals’
mistakes were typical of Russian monolinguals at the onset of verb
production, though the rate of bilinguals’ mistakes was higher than error rate
in monolinguals, suggesting a delay in bilingual acquisition. The rate of
erroneous verb tokens in bilinguals’ speech fluctuated between 29% and
45%, while the percentage of verb errors in Russian monolinguals was 16-
27% during the onset of verb production and significantly reduced within
months to less than 9%. The bilingual verb production was also characterized
by some decline in the rate of mistakes over time, though it was not as
significant and rapid as in monolingual children. Notably, these studies
showed that bilingual verb development proceeds in a monolingual like
manner with respect to the acquisition of finiteness and agreement, but is
non-monolingual like with respect to tense and aspect acquisition, suggesting
a possible delay in the acquisition of the former, but a deviant acquisition
which might be indicative of attrition for the latter.
Unlike other studies on L1 Russian bilingual acquisition, the studies of
Russian-Hebrew morphosyntax acquisition (Armon-Lotem et al. 2006,
Gagarina et al. 2007) distinguished between ‘early’ and ‘late’ sequential

bilingual children, showing that language representation was different for
these two population groups. It was assumed that early bilinguals are children
who were exposed to L2 before complete acquisition of verbal morphology
in L1, i.e., before the age of three, while late bilinguals had already acquired
their verbal morphology in L1 Russian before exposure to L2.
Armon-Lotem et al. (2006), for example, reported that though Russian-
Hebrew bilingual population groups aged 3;5 - 5;4 had high error rate as
compared with monolinguals’ data at the onset of data production (Gagarina
2000, 2003), early bilinguals had more verb mistakes (45%-29 %) out of verb
tokens than late bilinguals (33%-27%). It was also found that though the
distribution of mistakes was rather similar for the two bilingual populations
at the time of the first recording, the morphological make-up changed
considerably in early and late bilingual L1 Russian over the year, suggesting
that the early bilinguals show a delay, while the late bilinguals experience
attrition of their L1. Figure 3 shows the distribution of errors at the 4 points
of data collection over a year, for one late bilingual and one early bilingual
from Armon-Lotem et al. (2006):
Figure 3: L1 Russian verbal morphosyntax development. Distribution of errors in late

and early Russian-Hebrew bilinguals (Armon-Lotem et al.
2006)
100%
80%
Tense
60% RI
40% Agreement
20% Aspect
0% Stem
errors
I II III IV I II III
Late BLs Early BLs
The verb development in early bilinguals was characterized by the

prevalence of aspectual mistakes over tense, stem alternation, non-
grammatical use of RIs and agreement mistakes. Aspectual mistakes
constituted more than 75% of all verb errors by the time of the fourth
recordings, as compared to approximately 40 % at the time of the first
recording. Late bilinguals had more tense mistakes, which constituted more
than 60% of all verb errors by the fourth recording, as compared with
approximately 20% tense mistakes at the time of the first data recording,
providing clear evidence for the attrition of the morpho-syntactic domain.
Late bilinguals also experienced problems with assigning the correct
aspectual morphology to the verbal predicates. The preliminary longitudinal

study showed a reduction of the errors typical of the younger monolinguals
and an increase in the proportion of such errors which are unique to
bilinguals. Tense and aspect were identified to be the major source of
mistakes for both populations. Regarding the tendency to assign the
imperfective and perfective morphology inappropriately, it was found that
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals show a strong tendency to use imperfective
instead of perfective forms as in example 6:
(6) Int: A zdes’ my vidim chto Tali krasivuyu sobachku uzhe..
And here we see that Tali (a) nice dog already…
Tali: Risovala.
Was drawing / drewPAST / IMPF / TELIC / ACCOMPLISHMENT. (Tali, 4;9)
Narisovala.
Has drawnPAST / PRF / TELIC / ACCOMPLISHMENT. (Intended utterance)
When presented with a picture, in which a dog was drawn, the Russian–
Hebrew bilingual child is expected to use the perfective form of the verbal
predicate (narisovalaPAST / PRF ‘drew’), which is an accomplishment and
denotes the completed event with the obvious terminal boundaries. However,
the child uses the morphologically unmarked imperfective counterpart
(risovalaPAST / IMPF ‘was drawing / drew’) of the verb, which does not have
explicit terminal boundaries encoded in the verbal morphology and which is
inappropriate in the context. Since the perfective reading is derived from
imperfective for accomplishments, i.e. the imperfective verb is the base form
for accomplishments in Russian; the child has chosen the imperfective form
risovalaPAST / IMPF ‘was drawing / drew’ as the universal one for this lexical
type of verb. Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) suggest that this is because Hebrew,
which does not have the morphological manifestation of aspect, has only one
translation equivalent for both readings of the verb in Russian. Though the
study reported that Russian-Hebrew bilinguals tend to use mostly
imperfectives instead of perfectives, it was found that they make errors in
both directions as can be seen in examples 7 (a) and 7 (b):
(7) a. Int: Oj! On v dome ne pomeshaetsya. Shto on delaet.
Oj! He does not fit into the house. What is he doing?
Eldar: On pokushal PAST / PRF / ATELIC / ACTIVITY.
He has eaten (for a while).
(Eldar, 5;0; context: describing the picture in which the dinosaur is eating
pancakes)
a’. On kushajet PRES / IMPF / ATELIC / ACTIVITY .
He is eating. (Intended utterance)
(7) b. Int: On vsju chashku chaja uzhe….

He the whole cup of tea already…
Tali: PilPAST / IMPF / TELIC / ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Was drinking.
(Tali, 4;9; context: describing the picture in which the Beast has already
drunk its cup of tea)
b'. VypilPAST / PRF / TELIC / ACCOMPLISHMENT.
Has drunk. (Intended utterance)
Figure 4 shows the distribution of aspectual errors for early and late
bilinguals. Notably, early bilinguals use more perfectives instead of
imperfectives than late bilinguals. This developmental trend is typical for
monolingual children at the onset of verb production (Gagarina 2000) and
can thus be attributed to a delay in aspectual acquisition.
Figure 4: Distribution of aspectual errors in late and early Russian-Hebrew bilinguals
(Armon-Lotem et al. 2006)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Taking into account the fact that late bilinguals started to acquire their
L2 Hebrew after the age of 3, i.e. after their L1 verbal morphosyntax had
been acquired, the studies claimed that errors found in both Russian-Hebrew
populations indicated a delay for the early bilinguals and attrition for the late
bilinguals in the verbal morphosyntax development. Delay and L2 influence
on the acquisition of the L1 Russian aspectual system in simultaneous and
early sequential bilinguals are mostly manifested in the reliance on semantic
factors, which also guide early acquisition and are universal (e.g. the
Vendlerian classes). Attrition on the other hand is often described as
simplification, and is manifested in the use of the aspectual system by a
preference for less complex forms, regardless of the aspect they convey
(Armon-Lotem et al. 2006; Gagarina et al. 2005). Nevertheless, it was found
that there was a decline in the number of mistakes for both groups of
bilinguals. These findings correspond to the cross linguistic findings that
report a delay in bilingual acquisition, but not an acquisition failure (Meisel
2007, Schwartz 2004).
A study of narratives by Russian-German bilingual, ages 4-13 (Anstatt

2005) seems to suggest that these differences carry over to the use of tense-
aspect anchor in the narrative. They found that the use of tense-aspect anchor
in L1 Russian greatly differs from the Russian monolingual trend. While in
monolingual Russian narratives, the perfective past was preferred as the
anchor-aspect–tense (see figure 1) and, in contrast, the present was usually
used in monolingual German narratives (see figure 6), Russian-German
bilinguals used more present tense in their narratives unlike their Russian
monolinguals peers (see figure 5). Similarly to Russian monolinguals, the
Russian-German bilinguals tended to use the perfective past reading of the
predicates to describe the completed events and, unlike monolinguals, they
tended to use the imperfective present reading to denote non-completed or
ongoing events. The fact that the bilinguals change the strategy in the
temporal anchoring in L1 narration is indicative of the sensitivity of the
tense-aspect categories to the L2 influence.
Figure 5: Anchor Tense-Aspect in Figure 6: Anchor Tense-Aspect in
Russian-German bilinguals German monolinguals
(Anstatt et al. 2005) (Anstatt et al. 2005)
1%
1%
8%
30% 11%
54%
15%
80%
Present Imperfective past Perfective past Other Present Imperfective past Perfective past Other
All these studies of German, American and Israeli Russian presented

similar evidences for L1 Russian morphosyntax acquisition, which is
different from Russian monolinguals’ with respect to agreement morphology
and tense and aspect markings. All the studies provided strong evidence in
favour of the primacy of semantic cues for the aspect / tense morphological
cluster which is most sensitive to L2 influence.
2. Predictions
In light of previous studies of L1 Russian verbal morphosyntax acquisition in

the bilingual framework (Anstatt 2005; Armon-Lotem et al. 2006; Gagarina
et al. 2005, 2007), as well as studies of Russian and Hebrew monolingual
verb development (Anstatt 2005; Armon-Lotem 2003; Berman 1999; Berman
and Neeman 1994; Gagarina 2003), the present study tests the following
predictions:
a) Since Hebrew and Russian use the same anchor tense (Berman &
Slobin 1995) in the elicited narratives, we predict no difference in
the use of anchor tense between Russian monolinguals and Russian-
Hebrew bilinguals, despite Anstatt’s (2005) findings.
b) The use of the tense / aspect morphology in narratives (both correct
and erroneous) will be governed by a semantic bias in line with
Pereltsvaig’s (2005), Polinsky’s (1996, 1997, in press) and Anstatt’s
(2005) findings. Bilinguals will tend to assign perfective
morphology to telic verbal predicates and imperfective morphology
to atelic verbal predicates.
c) Russian-Hebrew bilinguals will experience problems with tense and
aspect morphology in the narratives, yielding higher use of the
imperfective, as found in Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) and Gagarina
et al. ( 2005, 2007).
d) Late bilinguals will have more imperfective aspect instead of
perfective and less perfective aspect instead of imperfective,
compared with early bilinguals, as shown by Armon-Lotem et al.
(2006) and Gagarina et al.( 2005, 2007). This will show in the ratio
of errors and in the distribution of errors.
e) In the distribution of errors, late bilinguals will have more tense
errors and less aspectual errors than early bilinguals, as suggested by
Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) and Gagarina et al. (2005, 2007)
findings.
f) Older children will have fewer tense and aspect errors than younger
children, in light of Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) and Gagarina et al.
(2005, 2007) findings.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The participants for the present study are 40 Russian-Hebrew sequential

bilingual children aged 4;0 - 4;11 and 7;0 – 8;0 with normal language
development, who immigrated to Israel at a very young age, or were born to
families who immigrated to Israel during the last fifteen years. All the
children’s parents are native Russian speakers. The participants’ families
represented a homogeneous group with respect to the socio-economic status.
At least one parent in each family had an academic degree, though not all
were working in their profession due to immigration. The subjects were
recruited in the central region of greater Tel-Aviv (Israel). All the subjects
were tested in a summer camp located in the centre for new immigrants ‘Beit
Ole’. All children who participated in the study attended state educational
institutions, either kindergartens or schools, where they were instructed in
their L2 Hebrew and the use of Russian is highly discouraged. The
information provided by parental questionnaires, children’s linguistic

preferences, as well as the experimenter’s rating showed that all children
were fluent in both languages, and for most children (except for some late 4s)
Hebrew was the dominant ‘school’ language and Russian was the ‘home’
language.
The children were tested in two age groups: 4-5 and 7-8 (20 subjects in each
group). Each age group was subdivided into early and late bilinguals by the
age in which the children started to acquire their L2 Hebrew (see table 1).
The proposed study applied the notion of ‘early’ and ‘late’ bilingualism
following the differences found by Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) and Gagarina
et al. (2005, 2007).
Table 1. Demographic information about participants

Age groups Early 4s Late 4s Early 7s Late 7s
Number of children per group 10 10 10 10
Range of ages per group 4;1 - 4;10 4;3 - 4;10 7;1 - 7;11 7;1 - 8;0
Mean age per group 4;4 4;6 7;6 7;6
Mean length of exposure to L2 3;2 1;3 5;8 3;9
3.2. Materials, procedures and analysis
The narratives were elicited using Mercer Mayer’s wordless picture book
‘Frog, where are you?’(1969) maintaining the same procedure used in
Berman and Slobin (1994) and Strömqvist and Verhoven (2004) for a variety
of languages. Subjects were instructed in L1 Russian to look at the twenty-
four pictures depicting the adventures a boy and his dog experience when
they try to find their runaway frog. No discussions about the plot were held
with the child prior to the narration in order to avoid any influence on a
child’s narrative. The children's questions about the characters or objects in
the pictures were answered by single words such as olen’ ‘a deer’ or ulej ‘a
beehive’, while going over the pictures. Afterwards the participants were
encouraged to tell the best stories they could. The interviewer did not ask a
child any questions during the interview and provided the minimal verbal
feedback, prompting a child by nodding, ‘uh’, da ‘yes’, tak ‘so’ and
prodolzhaj ‘go on’ phrases when necessary. The participants were
interviewed individually and digitally recorded. All narrations were fully
transcribed and segmented at the level of the utterance.
The length of narrations (number of words and utterances), percentage
of Verbal Utterances (VU), i.e., utterances containing a verb, and Mean
Length of Utterances (MLU) were measured for the purposes of the study. In
addition, in order to investigate the development of L1 Russian tense and
aspect, all verbal predicates were analyzed for finiteness, tense, use of the
perfective or imperfective grammatical aspect and lexical aspect following

the Vendlerian classification (see section 1.1. for a full discussion).
In the absence of a control group of similar age, which was considered
unnecessary, since a similar method was used by Anstatt (2005), the analysis
compares our findings to the ones obtained in Anstatt's study for 11 young
and 3 older Russian monolinguals aged 5-10 and 18-26 respectively. Thus,
the analysis compares the bilingual children with previous studies of
monolingual children and adults, which could serve as target control group,
under the assumption that the target for bilingual children is monolingual
knowledge. Previous studies of bilingual adults (Pereltsvaig 2004, 2005;
Polinsky 1996, 1997, in press), which are the target group for bilingual
acquisition, serve as a second point of comparison for the subjects of this
study.
4. Findings
Our findings show that there is no fundamental difference between early and
late bilinguals at the two age levels in the overall organization of narratives
with respect to the MLU, percentage of VUs, anchor tense and use of
grammatical aspect. The analysis of the general characteristics of the
narratives shows that though the 7s have a somewhat larger MLU than the 4s,
there is no significant difference in the length of the narratives among
participants of the present study with respect to their age and length of L2
Hebrew exposure (see table 2). The number of verbal utterances is already
adult like at the age of 4-5, and does not increase significantly over time.
Four children (3 early bilinguals and 1 late bilingual aged 4-5) were excluded
from the study at this point since they had less than 100 words, a MLU lower
than 2 and less than 5 VUs in their narratives. The Russian-Hebrew
bilinguals’ MLU is comparable with Russian-English bilinguals’ MLU (5.1)
but is lower than the children's MLU in Standard Russian (8.5) as reported in
Polinsky for one monolingual child aged 8 (2007).
Table 2. MLU and VU in the bilingual narratives

MLU VU VU
Age Subjects Words
mean mean mean
group (n) (mean)
(words) (n) (%)
Early 4s 7 264 4.2 43 73
Late 4s 9 257 4.5 47 84
Early 7s 10 287 5.3 46 88
Late 7s 10 253 5.4 43 92
Despite the low MLU, Russian-Hebrew bilingual children have, as

predicted, monolingual like temporality make up with respect to tense and
aspect anchoring in the narrative, as shown in figures 7 A-D.
Figures 7 A-D: Tense-Aspect Anchoring in L 1 Russian bilingual narrative
A: Early 4s B: Late 4s
1% 12%
3%
12%
31% 31%
54% 56%
C: Early 7s D: Late 7s
1%
21%
1%
17%
56%
54%
22%
28%
As can be seen in figures 7A-7D, Russian-Hebrew bilinguals, unlike the

Russian-German bilinguals in Anstatt’s study (see figure 6), prefer to use the
past tense as an anchor. Like Russian monolinguals they use more past
perfectives than imperfectives. However, the proportions of the past
perfectives and past imperfectives are different between Russian-Hebrew
bilinguals and Russian monolinguals. Bilinguals use fewer perfectives (54-
56% vs. 71%) and more imperfectives (22-31% vs. 9%) as compared with the
monolinguals (see figure 1). The bilingual use of the present tense forms is
similar to the monolingual findings (12-21% vs.19%). The bilingual use of
the anchor tense and aspect morphology does not differ significantly between
the early and late bilinguals in the two age groups.
No difference was found between the early and late bilinguals in the strategy
of lexical verb class choice in the narrative at the two age levels. Russian-
Hebrew bilinguals use mostly achievement, semelfactive, activity and state

verbal predicates to denote the events of change, process or states in an
elicited narrative. The bilinguals prefer to depict the instantaneous telic
events, using telic achievement and semelfactive verbs such as upalPRF / PAST
‘fell’, prygnulPRF / PAST ‘jumped’, nasholPRF / PAST ‘found’ or kriknulPRF / PAST
‘yelled’ in 31%-39% and 12%-15% of uses out of all verbal forms
respectively (see figure 8). Besides, Russian-Hebrew bilingual narratives
contain a high number of atelic state (16%-24%) and activity verbs (18%-
28%) such as videlIMPF / PAST ‘saw’, dumalIMPF / PAST ‘thought’, spalIMPF / PAST
‘slept’ or begal IMPF / PAST ‘was running / ran’. None of the groups of bilinguals
use many accomplishments in their narratives. Figure 8 presents the
distribution of lexical classes of verbs in the bilingual narratives:
Figure 8: Distribution of the lexical classes of verbs in bilingual narratives.
100%
80% STATES
60% ACTIVITIES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
40% SEMELFACTIVES
20% ACHIEVEMENTS
0%
early 4yrs late 4yrs early7yrs late7yrs
The use of the perfective or imperfective morphology in the elicited

narratives was determined by the choice of the lexical classes of verbal
predicates chosen to encode the lexical-semantic properties of the events in
the narrative, as shown in figures 9 A-D.
Figures 9 A-D: Distribution of tense and lexical aspect

A: Early 4s B: Late 4s
40 40
34
35 32,5
35
30 30
25 25
20 16,1 20 15,5 15,6

15,3 13,7
15 15
9,1
10,3
8,3 6,3
10 10 5,2
4,7 4,2
3,7
3,3 5 0,3 0,1 1,7 0,8
5 1,7 0,1 0,1
0
0
0
PAST FUTURE PAST PRESENT FUTURE PAST FUTURE PAST PRESENT FUTURE
PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE
ACHIEVEMENTS SEMELFACTIVES ACHIEVEMENTS SEMELFACTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES STATES
STATES
C: Early 7s D: Late 7s
38,4
40
40
35 31.1 35
30 30
25 25
20 17.1
20
12.6 13
15 10.9 10.6 12,8
11,9 12,7
15
10
5.5
5.5 6.1
10
4,8
5 0.1 0.1 0.1 00.2 3
5 0,4 0,3 1 0,2
0
0
PAST FUTURE PAST PRESENT FUTURE
PAST FUTURE PAST PRESENT FUTURE
PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE
PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE
ACHIEVEMENTS SEMELFACTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS SEMELFACTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ACTIVITIES STATES ACTIVITIES STATES
Figures 9 A-D show that Russian-Hebrew bilinguals prefer to denote

events by the use of the perfective past forms of achievement and
semelfactive predicates in most cases. The high number of achievements and
semelfactives is the source of the grammatical use of tense and aspect in the
narratives since the perfective is the base form for these lexical classes of
verbs in Russian and past tense is the most natural way to use them. The
perfective achievements and semelfactives constitute 50% of all the finite
forms used by the children in all four groups. Notably, the telic lexical class
of accomplishments is used in the perfective past too, though the bilingual
narratives do not contain many accomplishments. Russian-Hebrew bilinguals
conceptualize telic eventualities with the use of the perfective past
morphology. The atelic classes of activities and states are generally encoded
by the imperfective morphology either in the past or in the present tense.
Both early and late 4s and 7s show similar distribution of lexical classes
of states and activities in the present and past tenses in the narratives. All
groups prefer to use more states in the imperfective past (12-17%) than in the
imperfective present (5-8%). Early and late 4s use more activity verbal
predicates in the imperfective past (10% and 13%, respectively) than in the
imperfective present (5% and 6%, respectively). Early and late 7s equally use
activity verbal predicates in the imperfective past (11% and 13%,
respectively) and imperfective present (11% and 13%, respectively). The
activity predicates are generally not used in the perfective past in the
bilingual narratives. The early and late bilinguals use them in no more than in
5% of cases. Similarly, accomplishment, achievement and semelfactive
verbal predicates are rarely denoted by imperfective morphology (round 1%).
Despite the fact that the overall temporality make up is similar in the
narratives of the four age groups, there are differences in the use of the tense
and aspect morphology among these groups. Our findings show that Russian-
Hebrew bilinguals’ verb acquisition is characterized by a high rate of errors
among early and late bilinguals in both age groups. In order to investigate the
use of tense and imperfective / perfective grammatical aspect within the verb
development in general, we analyzed all verbal tokens. Table 3 shows a
significant difference (p<0.05 on a 1-tailed independent t-test) in the total
number of errors, and in the ratio of errors out of verb tokens between the 7s
and the 4s, but not within each age group. There is no significant difference
between the early and late 4-year-olds (38% vs. 26%) and early and late 7-
year-olds (20% vs. 16%). However, 4-year-old bilinguals produced
significantly more mistakes as compared with 7s. The results show an
improvement with age for early and late bilinguals.
Table 3. The ratio of verb errors out of verb tokens
Age Verbs Verb errors Errors

groups (tokens) (tokens) (%)
Total Mean Total Mean
(n) (n) (n) (n)
Early 4s 398 57 153 22 38%
Late 4s 526 75 139 20 26%
*
Early 7s 644 87 129 18 20% *
Late 7s 578 92 93 13 16%
The analysis of all erroneous uses of verbs in the data shows

inappropriate use of the finite / non-finite morphology, agreement
morphology, reflexivity marking, wrong pattern formation for the stem shift,
tense, im / perfective aspect and derivational morphology. Table 4 shows that
tense and aspect mistakes prevail in bilingual narratives for both early and
late 4s and 7s. Table 4 demonstrates a significant difference (p<0.05 on a 1-
tailed independent t-test) in the percentage of the tense and aspect errors out
of all verb tokens both between the 7s and the 4s and within early and late 4s,
but not within early and late 7s. The difference in the distribution of mistakes
disappears between the early and late bilinguals with the age.
Table 4. Distribution of errors in L1 Russian elicited narrative.
* *
*
Early Late Early Late

Types of the verbal errors
4s 4s 7s 7s
1.Root Infinitives (RI) 1% 0% 0% 0%
2. Error in number 1% 1% 1% 1%
3. Error in gender 3% 1% 3% 2%
4. Error in person 0% 1% 0% 0%
5. Wrong conjugative ending 0% 1% 1% 1%
6. Wrong tense 8% 6% 3% 3%
7. Omission of the reflexivity marker 0% 0% 0% 0%
8. Excessive reflexivity marker 0% 0% 0% 0%
9. Wrong perfective aspect 5% 2% 1% 1%
10. Wrong imperfective aspect 8% 9% 6% 5%
11. Wrong derivative form 4% 3% 2% 1%
12. Stem alternation mistakes 5% 1% 1% 1%
13. Created verbs 3% 2% 2% 1%
Total number of verbs 398 526 644 578
As can be seen in table 4, all children know how to assign the tense and
aspect morphology to the verbal predicates (though the early 4s had very few
Root Infinitives), but this is done erroneously in 21% (for early 4s), 17% (for
late 4s), 10% (for early 7s) and 9% ( for late 7s) out of all verb tokens. Both
early and late 7s, as well as the late 4s show the similar distribution of errors.
All three groups have significantly more errors in which imperfective aspect
is used instead of perfective (9% for late 4s, 6% for early 7s and 5% for late
7s), and a few errors in which perfective aspect is used instead of
imperfective aspect (2% for late 4s, 1% for early 7s and 1% for late 7s).
In comparison with the other groups, the early 4s have significantly
more errors in which perfective aspect is used instead of imperfective (5%).
In addition, early 4s have significantly more tense errors than early 7s (8%
vs. 3%). In general, the erroneous grammatical tense was the second major
source of mistakes for all the groups. For the purpose of the current study we
assumed that tense errors, unlike tense shifting, involve ungrammatical use of
tenses like in example 8:
(8) Kada noch’ stala, oni zhdut mamu
When the night came, they are waiting for mom. (Leya, 5; 3)
The example shows that the bilingual child cannot locate two different events
with respect to each other within one utterance. The child uses perfective past
with the achievement verb stalaPRF / PAST ‘became’, used instead of the verb
nastupilaPRF / PAST ‘came’, in the first clause of the complex utterance and the
imperfective present tense with an activity verb zhdutIMPF / PRES ‘are waiting’
in the second clause of the utterance. The inconsistency in the use of tenses
causes the non-cohesiveness of the bilinguals’ narrative, because the
temporal correlation between events is broken. The analysis of the tense-
aspect errors out of all verb errors presented a number of significant findings,
as seen in table 5:
Table 5. Distribution of errors out of other errors
Early Late Early Late
Types of the verbal errors
4s 4s 7s 7s
1. Root Infinitives (RI) 1% 0% 0% 0%
2. Error in number 11% 9% 17% 15%
3. Error in gender 1% 3% 5% 3%
4. Error in person 21% 22% 13% 20%
5. Wrong verbal ending 0% 1% 2% 2%
6. Wrong tense 13% 6% 4% 5%
7. Omission of the reflexivity marker 22% 36% 30% 31%
8. Redundant reflexivity marker 11% 10% 12% 6%
9. Wrong perfective aspect 12% 4% 7% 9%
10. Wrong imperfective aspect 9% 9% 9% 8%
Total number of errors 152 137 129 93
Though there is a decrease in the number of errors with age, the

distribution of tense and aspect errors remains the same as related to other
kinds of errors among the four groups. More than 50% of all the errors are
tense and aspect errors (56 % for early 4s, 64 % for late 4s, 47% for early 7s
and 56 % for late 7s). The ungrammatical use of tense occurred in 22 % for
late 4s, 13% for early 7s and 20% for late 7s. All the groups did not differ
significantly with respect to assigning of the inappropriate grammatical tense.
Nevertheless, the distribution of aspect errors shows us a different
developmental trend in the age groups. Late 4s as well as early 7s and late 7s
show a similar distribution of aspect errors. The use of imperfectives instead
of perfectives surpasses all other mistakes (36 % for the late 4s, 30% for the
early 7s and 31% for the late 7s). Notably, these groups do not misuse
perfectives instead of imperfectives. The percentage of this kind of errors is
significantly lower as compared with the use of the imperfective instead of
the perfective morphology (6 % vs. 36 % for the late 4s, 4% vs. 30% for the
early 7s and 5% vs. 31% for the late 7s).
The early 4s show a different use of aspect morphology as compared
with the other groups. They use inappropriately the perfective aspect in 13%
of cases when the imperfective aspect should be used. This result is
significantly higher than that among the late 4s (6%), the early 7s (4%) and
the late 7s (5%). Unlike the other three groups, early 4s have significantly
less errors in which imperfective aspect is used instead of perfective aspect
(22% as compared with 36 % for the late 4s, 30% for the early 7s and 31%
for the late 7s). Nevertheless, the tendency in the correlation of aspect errors
remains the same for early 4s as for the other three groups. They tend to
assign imperfective instead of perfective morphology in higher number of
uses (22%) than perfective instead of imperfective morphology (13%) to the
verbal predicates. The erroneous use of grammatical aspect is influenced by
the telic / atelic semantic properties of the verbal predicates (see figure 10).
Figure 10. Distribution of the erroneous use of the( im)perfective grammatical aspect
by lexical classes of verbs
100%
80% STATES
ACTIVITIES
60%
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
40% SEMELFACTIVES
20% ACHIEVEMENTS
0%
Early 4s Late 4s Early7s Late7s Early 4s Late 4s Early7s Late7s
ERRONEOUS PERFECTIVE USE ERRONEOUS IMPERFECTIVE USE
The bilinguals erroneously use perfective morphology with telic events

denoted by achievement and accomplishment verbal predicates in 80%-95%
of cases when imperfective morphology should be assigned. It should be
mentioned that bilingual children often use achievements like nasholPRF / PAST
‘found’ instead of the contextually required activity iskalIMPF / PAST ‘was

looking for’ predicate. The bilinguals are inclined to denote change by means
of shifting from one situation type to another. This inclination is typical for
the activities-achievement correlations like nasholPRF / PAST ‘found’ vs.
iskalIMPF / PAST ‘was looking for’. However, there are very few cases when
perfective achievements like uvidelPRF / PAST ‘saw’ are used instead of the
contextually required imperfective state predicates videlIMPF / PAST ‘saw’
situation types. All groups erroneously assigned perfective morphology to
atelic activities in 5-12% of case.
The erroneous use of imperfective rather than perfective morphology
occurs with atelic activity and state verbal predicates as it is shown in figure
10. All groups experience difficulties with assigning the perfective
morphology with activity predicates in 24 % for early 4s, 49% for late 4s,
41% for early 7s and 64% for late 7s. The appropriate perfective morphology
with these activity predicates is prefixation by 'po-' which would derive a
perfective delimited activity event predicate or durational predicate with the
verb meaning of for a relatively short time, denoting an event with with
determined terminal points as in poguljalPRF/PAST vs. guljalIMPF/PAST
(Paducheva 1996, 2004). Moreover, they prefer to use imperfective
morphology instead of perfective morphology in the cases when a lexical
class shift from states to achievements should occur: in 70% of the cases for
early 4s, 41% for late 4s, 51% for early 7s and 24% for late 7s. Notably, the
4s erroneously associate the imperfective morphology with the use of stative
predicates, while the 7s assign imperfective morphology to activity
predicates. Besides, all groups of bilinguals misuse imperfective morphology
with telic achievement predicates in 6%-12% of cases. The percentage of
these uses is not high and is comparable with the erroneous use of perfective
morphology with atelic predicates of activities in 5-12% of cases.
In summary, the analysis of bilingual narratives with respect to tense
and aspect use showed no significant differences between early and late
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals, tense and aspect anchoring and lexical choice of
verbs, i.e. achievements, semelfactives, accomplishments, states and
activities in an elicited narrative. We found that grammatical use of tense and
aspect morphology was governed by semantic biases in L1 Russian
narratives. Events depicting achievement, semelfactive and accomplishment
situations were generally described by verbal predicates in the perfective
past. Events depicted by activity and state predicates were described by
imperfective verbs in the bilingual narratives. This inclination was preserved
for the four groups of participants in the current study. All groups
experienced problems with correctly assigning tense and aspect morphology
to verbal predicates. Though the results indicated that tense and aspect
mistakes surpassed other verb mistakes in all groups, the distribution of
mistakes was different between the bilinguals’ types and ages. Both groups of
7s, as well as late 4s, showed the same distribution of errors. All three groups
had significantly more errors in which imperfective aspect was used instead
of perfective and a few errors in which perfective aspect was used instead of
imperfective aspect. In comparison with the other groups, early 4s had
significantly more errors in which perfective aspect was used instead of
imperfective, and significantly less errors in which imperfective aspect was
used instead of perfective aspect. Our findings showed that the erroneous use
of imperfective and perfective morphology was not accidental and was
strongly governed by a semantic bias.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The analysis of the narratives showed that Russian-Hebrew bilinguals used

past tense as the anchor tense for telling a story. Our findings are different
from Anstatt’s et al. (2005) findings, which predicted that Russian-German
bilinguals use more present tense in their L1 Russian narratives due to the L2
German influence in which present tense is favoured in an elicited narrative.
The current study shows that in the absence of conflicting crosslinguistic
influence, since both Russian and Hebrew use the past tense as the anchoring
tense, Russian bilinguals favour past tense in an elicited narrative, as we had
predicted.
Our study provided convincing evidence that there is a connection
between the use of tense and aspect morphology and lexical aspect or
semantic classes of verbs. Most achievement, semelfactive and
accomplishment predicates were used in the past perfective form. The
imperfective past or present was the preferred form for both activity and state
predicates. These findings suggest that the use of tense / aspect morphology
in L1 Russian bilingual narratives is governed by a semantic bias.
Nevertheless, bilinguals erroneously use the perfective morphology with
atelic activity predicates, though in fewer cases, i.e. in 3-5% of occasional
erroneous choice of the perfective aspectual form. This shows that the
bilinguals know the morphological perfective-imperfective form, but do not
use it correctly to encode the lexical semantic properties of the situations.
The current study provided evidence that the grammatical tense and
aspect were not assigned correctly in a high number of cases. In line with
previous findings (Armon-Lotem et al. 2006 and Gagarina et al. 2005, 2007),
the current study showed that tense and aspect mistakes outnumbered other
mistakes in the two age groups. Unlike Armon-Lotem et al. (2006) study,
which suggested that late bilinguals had more tense errors and fewer
aspectual errors than early bilinguals, the current study found that aspect
errors were the major source of mistakes for both early and late bilinguals in
the two age groups in the elicited narratives. These findings reflect the
difference between spontaneous samples, where tense is determined by the
conversational situation, and an elicited narrative in which the narrator’s use

of tenses conforms to the narrative anchor tense.
We thus found that aspect mistakes constitute a major problem for
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals. Though the number of these mistakes decreases
with age, their distribution remains the same in 4s and 7s groups. Early and
late bilinguals in the two age groups overgeneralize the use of the
imperfectives mainly in atelic situations when the perfective should be used.
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals opt for the more morphologically transparent
imperfective. We suggest that the reasons for their preference for the
imperfective are:
(1) Simplicity: most imperfectives are the base forms among aspectual
counterparts (activities, states, accomplishments), i.e. the least marked forms
that are simpler to use;
(2) Universality: imperfective forms are sufficiently broad in their semantics
to be used to denote events which are complete and temporally delimited as
well as events which are incomplete or ongoing, while perfective forms are
constrained to denote completed, delimited or instantaneous events;
(3) Interference: the absence of morphologically expressed grammatical
aspect in Hebrew causes the use of the base (i.e. morphologically simpler)
form of the aspectual correlates in Russian, suggesting a strong dominance of
semantic cues over morphological tense and aspect, as in the Aspect First
Hypothesis (Aksu-Koç1988; Shirai & Andersen 1995; among others).
This study shows that the erroneous use of the imperfective instead of
the perfective constitutes the majority of aspectual errors. On the one hand,
this type of mistakes is governed by the principle of simplicity, as
imperfectives are the least marked morphological forms for states, activity
and accomplishment lexical classes and are easier to produce. On the other
hand, the high incidence of erroneous use of imperfectives can be explained
by the principle of universality, as imperfectives can be used to denote state,
ongoing, incomplete, iterative and complete situations. Moreover, the study
shows that imperfectives are assigned instead of perfectives mainly to
activity and state predicates, which are atelic and the base forms of which are
imperfectives. These uses constitute the majority of the errors when the
imperfective is used instead of the perfective. The findings provide evidence
that lexical aspect governs the choice of aspectual forms. The use of the
morphologically simpler, underived base forms out of imperfective -
perfective aspectual correlates and in particular, the imperfectives for the
state and activity predicates can be explained by the interference principle.
As there is no grammatical manifestation of the lexical aspect in Hebrew,
Russian-Hebrew bilinguals rely on semantic cues, while choosing the
morphological aspect.
The second type of aspect error is the use of perfective morphology

instead of imperfective. This type of error shows the clear dominance of the
semantic bias over the use of morphological tense and aspect. The perfective
morphology is assigned in most cases to the telic verbal predicates of
achievements, semelfactives and accomplishments. The study shows that
bilinguals use accomplishments mostly with perfective morphology in
contrast to our predictions that bilinguals would tend to use base forms of
imperfective - perfective aspectual correlates and in particular, imperfectives
for accomplishment predicates. These findings provide convincing evidence
that lexical aspect determines the choice of aspectual forms.
In summary, the use of perfective aspect morphology is governed by
simplicity, universality and interference principles. The erroneous use of
imperfectives is favoured by Russian bilinguals as these forms are simpler to
use and functionally universal. Nevertheless, there is an obvious lexical
aspect-guided tendency in the erroneous use of grammatical aspect. Russian-
Hebrew bilinguals tend to erroneously use the imperfectives with atelic
predicates and perfectives with telic predicates. This developmental trend
shows the L2 influence on the use of grammatical aspect in L1 and strong
semantic bias that govern L1 morphosyntax acquisition.
In some cases, bilinguals also use perfective morphology with atelic
predicates and, vice versa, imperfective morphology with telic predicates. We
consider this to be a developmental trend in acquiring the perfective /
imperfective distinction. Specifically, bilinguals are aware of the form and
get the knowledge of its function.
The development of (im)perfective morphology proceeds differently
among early and late bilinguals. Early 4s have more aspect errors when the
perfective is used instead of the imperfective as compared with late 4s, early
7s and late 7s. This developmental trend is reminiscent of monolingual like
acquisition in early bilingual development (Gagarina 2003). This study shows
that this tendency is not retained in older early bilinguals both in the ratio,
and in the distribution of errors. This difference might be explained by the
dissimilar early and late bilinguals’ development. While acquisition of the L1
Russian aspectual system in early bilinguals is characterized by delay and L2
influence mostly manifested in the reliance on semantic factors, which also
guide early acquisition and are universal (e.g., the Vendlerian classes), tense
and aspect development in late bilinguals can be explained by attrition, which
leads to the creation of a unique bilingual aspect system characterized by
simplification, i.e. the preference for less complex forms (Armon-Lotem et
al. 2006; Gagarina et al. 2005). The difference between early and late
bilinguals disappears with age with respect to tense and aspect development.
This study shows that both early 7s and late 7s have fewer tense and
aspect errors than younger bilinguals. Older early and late bilinguals show
significant improvement in assigning grammatical tense and (im)perfective
morphology with age. These findings correspond with Armon-Lotem’s et al.

(2006) and Gagarina’s et al. (2005, 2007) findings and could be explained by
some delay for early bilinguals and attrition for late bilinguals in the
development of tense and aspect morphology.
To conclude, in this paper, we have examined the acquisition of tense
and aspect morphology in Russian-Hebrew bilinguals aged 4;0 -4;11 and 7;0
- 8;0. This paper discussed tense and aspect anchoring and the use in a L1
Russian elicited narrative. We have shown that tense and aspect anchoring,
which is the perfective past, is favoured by bilinguals as well as
monolinguals. However, the development of tense and aspect morphology is
non-monolingual-like. Bilingual narratives are characterized by an
ungrammatical use of tense and aspect. The use of perfective and
imperfective morphology is strongly governed by a semantic bias and
depends on the telicity / atelicity features of the lexical semantic class of
verbs. The bilinguals show knowledge of the (im)perfective morphology, i.e.
the form, though they still lack full mapping onto the function. The bilinguals
rely on semantic cues and simplicity, universality and interference principles,
which determine the L1 Russian morphosyntax development in the
framework of an extensive exposure to L2 Hebrew, although more research is
needed to confirm this proposal.
References
Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of

Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anstatt, T. (2005). Bilingualität und narrative Strukturen: Aspekt-Tempus-
Verwendungen russisch-deutscher Kinder. Gastvortrag an der
Universität Hamburg, 26th January 2005.
Armon-Lotem, Sh.; Berman, R. (2003). The Emergence of Grammar: Early
Verbs and Beyond. Journal of Child Language 30 / 4: 845-878.
Armon-Lotem, Sh.; Gagarina, N.; Gupol, O. (2006). Inflectional Verb Errors
in the Acquisition of Russian by Bilingual and Monolingual Children.
Presented as a poster at the Language Acquisition and Bilingualism
Conference Consequences of the Multilingual Society, Toronto, 4-7
May.
Avrutin, S. (1999). The Development of the Syntax-Discourse Interface.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bar-Shalom, E.; Snyder, W. (2001). Descriptive imperatives in child Russian
and early mastery of verbal inflection. In Proceedings of the 25th Boston
University Conference on Child Language Development. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press, 94-101.
Bar-Shalom, E. (2002). Tense and Aspect in Early Child Russian. In
Language Acquisition 10(4): 321-327.
Bar-Shalom, E. (2003). The Relationship between Inherent and Grammatical

Aspect in Early Child Russian. In BUCLD Proceedings, Beachley, B.,
Brown, A. and F. Conlin (eds), Cascadilla Press, Sommerville, Mass.,
107-114.
Berman, R. A. (1978). Modern Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv:
University Publishing Projects.
Berman, R. (1999). Bilingual Proficiency / Proficient Bilingualism: Insights
from Narrative Texts. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (eds), Bilingualism
and Migration. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 187-208.
Berman, R.; Neeman, Y. (1994). Development of Linguistic Forms: Hebrew.
In Berman and Slobin, 285-328.
Berman, R.; Slobin, D. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative: A
Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bloom, L.; Lifter, K.; Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of Verbs and the
Development of Verb Inflection in Child Language. Language 56/2:
386-412.
Boneh, N.; Doron, E. (2005). Viewpoint Aspect in Hebrew: Simple vs.
Periphrastic Past. Presented at Research Workshop of the Israel Science
Foundation on Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the
Semantics of Aspect, June 27-30.
Borik, O. (2002). Aspect and Reference Time. PhD dissertation, Utrecht
University.
Braginsky P.; Rothstein S. (2008). Vendler Classes and the Russian
Aspectual System. Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 16 / 1:3-55.
Brecht, Richard D. (1985). The form and function of aspect in Russian.
Michael S.Flier and Richard D. Brecht, eds: Issues in Russian
morphosyntax. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 9-34.
Brun, D.; Avrutin, S.; Babyonshev, M. (1999). Aspect and its Temporal
Interpretation during the Optional Infinitive Stage in Russian. In A.
Green, H. Littlefield, and C. Tano (eds). Proceedings of BUCLD 23,
Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, 120-131.
Ceytlin, S. (2000). Jazyk i Rebjonok: Lingvistika Detskoj Reči. [The
Language and the Child: Language Acquisition]. Moskva: VLADOS.
Dieser E.; Anstatt T. (2006). Connection between the Lexical and
Grammatical Development of Bilingual Russian-German Children.
Vortrag, Linguistic Evidence II, Tübingen, 2nd-4th February 2006 .
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Dressler, W.; Gagarina, N. (1999). Basic Questions in Establishing the Verb
Classes of Contemporary Russian. In: L. Fleishman et al. eds. Essays in
poetics, literary history and linguistics. Festschrift V.V. Ivanov.
Moskau: OGI, 754-760.
Filip, H.; Rothstein, S. (2006). Telicity as a semantic parameter. In: J. Lavine,

S. Franks, Tasseva-Kurktchieva and H. Filip (eds) Formal Approaches
to Slavic Linguistics 14 (The Princeton Meeting), Michigan Slavic
Publications: Ann Arbor, 139-156.
Gagarina, N. (2000). The Acquisition of Aspectuality by Russian Children:
the early stages. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 15: 232-246.
Gagarina, N. (2002a). Productivity of the Verbal Inflectional Classes (the
Case of Russian), In: K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & J. Weckwerth (eds)
Future Challenges for Natural Linguistics, Wien: Lincom, 153-164.
Gagarina, N. (2002b). Thoughts on Optional Infinitives (in Russian). In: D.
Hole, P. Law and N. Zhang (eds) Linguistics by Heart, Webfest for
Horst-Dieter Gasde. Berlin: ZAS, 1-23.
Gagarina, N. (2003). The Early Verb Development and Demarcation of
Stages in Three Russian-Speaking Children. In D. Bittner, W. U.
Dressler, and M. Kilani-Schoch (eds): Development of Verb Inflection
in First Language Acquisition. Berlin: de Cruyter. A Cross-Linguistic
Perspective, 131-169.
Gagarina, N. (2004a). Does the acquisition of aspect have anything to do
with aspectual pairs? ZAS Papers in Linguistics 33: 39-61.
Gagarina, N. (2004b). On Correlations between the Emergence of Finite
Forms and the Development of the Utterances in Russian and German.
ZAS Papers in Linguistics 33: 13-38.
Gagarina, N.; Armon-Lotem, Sh.; Gupol, O. (2005). A Story of Error.
Presented at the Xth International Congress for the Study of Child
Language, 25th-29th July.
Gagarina, N.; Armon-Lotem, Sh.; Gupol, O. (2007). Developmental
Variation in the Acquisition of L1Russian Verb Inflection by
Monolinguals and Bilinguals. In: H. Caunt-Nulton, S. Kulatilake and I-
hao Woo (eds), On-Line Supplement to the Proceedings of BUCLD 31.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 1-11.
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I.; Fitzenshaft, A.; Tracy, R. (1992). Language
Acquisition and Competing Linguistic Representations the Child as
Arbiter. In: J.M. Meisel (ed.): The Acquisition of Verb Placement.
Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition.
Dortrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer, 139-179.
Greenberg, Y. (2008). Two types of the imperfectivization in modern
Hebrew: Evidence from the behavior of achievements. Ms. Bar Ilan
University.
Gvozdev, A. (1961). Voprosy Izuchenija Detskoj Rechi.[Issues in Child
Speech Research]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Pedagogicheskih
Nauk RSFSR.
Kiebzak-Mandera, D.; Smoczynska, M.; Protassova, E. (1997). Acquisition
of Russian verb Morphology: the Early Stages. In: W. U. Dressler
(ed.) Studies in Pre- and Protomorphology, Wien: Verlag der

Osterreichischen Akad. der Wissenshaft 1001-114.
Loeb, D.; Leonards, L. (1991). Subject Case Marking and Verbal
Morphology in Normally Developing and Specifically Impaired
Children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34: 340-346.
Mehlig, H. R. (2005). Verbal Aspect and Telicity in Russian: Interactions
between Verbal Aspect and Arguments with Numerals or Other
Expressions of Quantity. Presented at Research Workshop of the Israel
Science Foundation on Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to
the Semantics of Aspect, June 27-30.
Meisel, J. (2004). The Bilingual Child. In: T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie, The
Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 91-113.
Meisel, J. (2007). The weaker language in early child bilingualism:
Acquiring a first language as a second language? Applied
Psycholinguistics, 28: 495-514.
Ožegov, S. (1989). Slovar’ Russkogo Jazyka. [Dictionary of the Russian
Language]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.
Padučeva, E. (1996). Semantichesliye Issledovaniya. [Semantic Researches].
Moskva: Yazyki russkoj kultury.
Padučeva, E. (2008). Vyskazyvanije i ego Sootnesjonnost' s Dejstvitelnostju.
[Expression and its correlation with the Reality]. 5th-ed. Moskva:
URSS.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2004). Immigrant Russian: Factors in the Restructuring of
the Aspectual system under attrition. Proceedings of BLS 2003.
Pereltsvaig, A. (2005). Aspect Lost, Aspect Regained: Restructuring of
Aspectual Marking in American Russian. In: P. Kempchinsky and R
Slabakova (eds) Aspectual Inquiries, Springer: Dordrecht, 369-395.
Polinsky, M. (1996). American Russian: an Endangered Language?
Manuscript, USC-UCSD.
Polinsky, M. (1997). American Russian: Language Loss meets Language
Acquisition. In: W. Browne et al. (eds) Annual Workshop on Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic
Publications, 370-407.
Polinsky, M. (2007). Heritage Language Narratives. In: D. Brinton and O.
Kagan (eds) Heritage Language education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 149-164.
Poupynin, J. (1998). Elementy Vidovremennoj Sistemy v Russkoj Rechi.
[Elements of the Temporality System in Russian]. Voprosy
Jazykoznanija 2: 102-116.
Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008) Lexicalized Meaning and the Internal Temporal
Structure of Events, in: S. Rothstein (ed.) Crosslinguistic and
Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, , 13-42.
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical

Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rothstein, S. (2008a). Telicity and Atomicity. In S. Rothstein (ed)
Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect.
John Benjamins: Amsterdam, 43-78.
Rothstein, S. (2008b). Two Puzzles for a Theory of Lexical Aspect: the Case
of Semelfactives and Degree Adverbials. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-
Zybatowand M. Shaefer (eds), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and
Interpretation. Mouton De Gruyter: Berlin, 175-198.
Shirai, Y.; Andersen, W. (1995). The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect
Morphology: A Prototype Account. Language 71: 743-762.
Schwartz, B. (2004). Why Child L2 Acquisition? In: J. Van Kampen J. and S.
Baauw (eds) Proceedings of GALA 2003, LOT Occasional Series, 47-
66.
Stoll, S. (1998). Acquisition of Russian Aspect. First Language, 18: 351-377.
Stoll, S. (2001). The Acquisition of Russian Aspect. PhD thesis, UC
Berkeley.
Strömqvist, S.; Verhoven, L. (2004). Relating Events in Narrative:
Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tsarfaty, R. (2004). ‘binyanim ba’avir’. An Investigation of Aspect
Semantics in Modern Hebrew. Master’s Thesis. Institute for Logic
Language and Computation. Amsterdam University.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press,.
Verrips, M.; Weissenborn, J. (1992). Routes to Verb Placement in Early
German and French: The Independence of Finiteness and Agreement.
In: J. Meisel (ed.) The Acquisition of Verb Placement. Dortrecht /
Boston / London: Kluwer, 283-331.
Yitzhaki, D. (2004). The Semantics of Lexical Aspect in Modern Hebrew.
Presented at IATL 20, Bar Ilan University, Israel, 23-23 June.
Čertkova, M. (1996). Grammaticheskaja Kategorija Vida v Sovremennom
Russkom Yazyke [The Grammatical Category of Aspect in the Modern
Russian Language]. Moskva: Nauka.
Theoretical views on the development of Spanish L2
knowledge about iterativity and habituality
M. Rafael SALABERRY
University of Texas-Austin, USA
1. Introduction
In Spanish, both single and iterated telic events can be conveyed with the use
of the Preterite (1a and 1b), whereas habituality is typically expressed with
the use of the Imperfect (1c) 1. As the translated versions of these sentences
show, English does convey the contrastive meanings of iterativity and
habituality, although the formal means to express those meanings are
different. In English, iterativity and habituality may be contrasted with the
use of the Simple Past versus the periphrastic as (1b) and (1c) show. Notice,
however, that (1c) shows that habituality may be expressed with the Simple
Past as well, thus generating a possible source of confusion that is not the
case in Spanish.
(1) a. Ayer el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde.
Yesterday the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
b. Durante muchos meses el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde.
For months the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
c. Cuando era niño el tren del mediodía llegaba (IMP) tarde.
When I was a child, the 12 o’clock train used to arrive / would arrive /
arrived late.
Previous studies (e.g., Pérez-Leroux et al., 2007; Slabakova & Montrul,

2002, 2007) show that whereas English native speakers learning Spanish
consistently accept the use of the Preterite with sentences depicting a single
event (the train arrival in 1a), they tend to reject the use of the Preterite
depicting an iterated telic event (the many train arrivals in 1b). In the
remainder of this chapter, I will propose a theoretical account of this outcome
as represented in previous and ongoing empirical studies. The account is an
updated version of the unmarked past tense hypothesis (Wiberg, 1996) or, in
its application to L2 Spanish data, the default past tense hypothesis
(Salaberry, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004).
1
Sample sentences adapted from examples used in Slabakova and Montrul
(2007).
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 107-129

108 M. Rafael Salaberry
2. Aspect
Aspect “concerns the different perspectives which a speaker can take and
express with regard to the temporal course of some event, action, process,
etc. ” (Klein, 1994: 16). This definition captures what is most essential about
a definition of aspect: the notion of particular interpretations of temporality
of situations in reality conveyed by or depicted in linguistic terms. Klein’s
definition is, however, overly broad and requires further refinement. For
instance, most definitions of aspect (including Klein’s extended discussion of
the topic) postulate a division of aspectual phenomena into two levels that we
can define as (inherent) lexical aspect (ontological distinctions or situation
types) and grammatical aspect (viewpoint or speaker’s perspective) 2. Smith
(1997: 5), for instance, argues that “[s]entences present aspectual information
about situation type and viewpoint. Although they co-occur, the two types of
information are independent.” For the purpose of this paper, I will
concentrate on the analysis of viewpoint aspect (using Smith’s terminology)
or grammatical aspect. The distinction about situation aspect (or lexical
aspect in other publications) and grammatical aspect is, however, an
important one that I will address in more detail in the discussion section in
the context of the analysis of proposed theoretical arguments about the
development of knowledge about iterativity.
Both English and Spanish convey information about the contrastive
values of aspectual meanings explicitly through morphological means. For
instance, in Spanish, the Preterite-Imperfect morphological contrast serves to
communicate various aspectual meanings among which the concept of
boundedness is perhaps the most basic one. In order to depict an eventuality
as bounded, we need to make reference to the boundaries of an eventuality
(Depraetre, 1995). Thus, in sentence (2a) the Preterite is used to depict the
eventuality of eating an apple with a terminal point that has been achieved,
whereas (2b) uses the Imperfect to depict the same eventuality without the
terminal point.
(2) a. Julián COMIÓ una manzana.
b. Julián COMÍA una manzana, cuando LLEGÓ Lucas.
2
The label lexical aspect is a misnomer of sorts, if its meaning is restricted
simply to the aspectual information conveyed by the lexical predicate (in the
most basic interpretation of Vendler’s classification of verb types). Given that
more than just predicate level information is necessary to identify the basic
aspectual nature of a situation or eventuality (e.g., Verkuyl, 1993), the term
situation aspect proposed by Smith (1991, 1997) may be a more accurate label.
Along the same lines, Filip (1999: 15) prefers the term “eventuality type instead
of aspect, aspectual class or inherent lexical aspect to minimize confusion with
the other category.”
Theoretical views on the development of Spanish L2 knowledge 109
A graphical representation of the application of the concept of boundedness

is shown in Figure 1. In order to present an eventuality as bounded, we may
make reference to a particular point of the event (e.g., the end point, a point
in the middle of the eventuality, or, in some cases, even the beginning point).
Thus, boundedness is inherently associated with punctuality. In contrast,
when the eventuality is presented as unbounded (with no endpoints), we
essentially make reference to the state that represents the eventuality: we
mark the notion of continuousness.
Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the concept of boundedness.
punctuality ⇓
continuousness ------------------⇒
English also conveys information about aspectual contrasts, although it

does so without the use of the obligatory markers of verbal morphology that
Spanish has at its disposal (cf. Preterite and Imperfect). What is important to
underline, however, is that despite the fact that verbal morphology is
impoverished with respect to Spanish, English can formally depict
eventualities as complete or not with the use of, for example, the Simple
Past-Past Progressive contrast. For instance, the now famous example from
Comrie presented in sentence (3), shows that the eventuality is depicted as
completed with the use of the Simple Past (i.e., read), but then again, the
same eventuality is depicted as incomplete in the second clause with the use
of the Past Progressive (i.e., was reading).
(3) John read that book yesterday; while he was reading it, the postman came.
Nevertheless, boundedness is not the only aspectual concept communicated

through the use of past tense morphology in Spanish. The notions of
iterativity and habituality are also expressed with the use of the Preterite and
Imperfect respectively. A graphical representation of the contrastive meaning
of iterativity versus habituality is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Graphical depiction of the concepts of
punctuality, habituality and iterativity.
punctuality ⇓
habituality ⇒⇒⇒⇒
iterativity ⇓⇓⇓⇓
As we can see, in both habituality and iterativity, we focus on the iteration of

the eventuality. The horizontal arrows are used to show that a habitual is
more like a state (as argued by Smith, 1997, inter alia). In contrast, the
vertical arrows in the graphic serve to convey the notion that the concept of
iterativity maintains the focus on the terminal points of the various iterations
of the event. For instance, Langacker (1999) proposes that iterativity
(repetitive in his terminology) is different from habituality to the extent that
iterated eventualities are anchored to specific points in time, whereas habitual
eventualities are not (for an extended analysis see Comrie, 1986; Langacker,
1987, 1999; Salaberry 2008).
Iterativity and habituality tend to be confused as one and the same
concept (in some cases used as synonymous expressions) in part because they
represent two specific nuances of meaning of the basic concept of the
repetition of eventualities. Several researchers, however, have pointed out
some distinctions between the two concepts (Comrie, 1986; Depraetre, 1995;
Langacker, 1987, 1999). Depraetre (1995: 12), for instance, points out that a
habit or repetitive situation is not inherently atelic and unbounded. In fact, a
repetitive situation can also be telic, the situation holds a predetermined
number of times. The following examples from Smith (1997: 51) are useful
to illustrate the telic meaning of various iterated eventualities:
(4) a. Last year, the train arrived late.
b. For months, the train arrived late.
(5) a. Last year, John fed the cat.
b. For months, John fed the cat.
(6) a. Last year, John moved to a new apartment.
b. For months, John moved to a new apartment.
In both (4b) and (5b), there is a straightforward (default or prototypical)

interpretation of the verb phrase as a derived activity, or multiple event
activity (cf. Smith, 1997): there were multiple arrivals of the train and
multiple feedings of the cat. Sentences (4a) and (5a), on the other hand,
require some pragmatic knowledge to make sense of the most likely meaning
of the sentence, because the adverbial last year may ambiguously signal a
one-time event or multiple events of the same type. Thus, our pragmatic
knowledge about the nature of the activities involved (i.e., train schedules
and feeding pets) leads us to believe that the multiple event activity is to be
preferred in both instances. Sentence (6), however, presents us with an
interesting conundrum. That is, the same pragmatic knowledge we used with
sentences (4a) and (5a) leads us to infer that (6a) refers to one single event of
moving (as a whole). In contrast, whereas (6b) conveys the same overall
meaning of (6a), it also contains an additional piece of information: John’s
move, as a whole, may have required several trips (in principle, as many as
there were train arrivals or feedings of the cat). Therefore, the verbal
predicate to move can be classified as a telic event.
3. The representation of iterativity
The examples from Smith described in the previous section raise important
questions regarding the representational nature of habituality versus
iterativity. For instance, should the representation of both habituality and
iterativity be regarded as part of grammatical knowledge (e.g., Salaberry,
2008) ? Or alternatively, should only habituality be regarded as part of
grammatical knowledge, whereas iterativity is conceptualized as pragmatic
knowledge (e.g., Slabakova & Montrul, 2002, 2007).
3.1. Iterativity as pragmatic knowledge
According to Slabakova and Montrul, the iteration of a telic event with the
use of adverbials represents a case of a shift in meaning at the level of
pragmatics (as opposed to grammar). For instance, as an example of a
pragmatically-induced shift, Slabakova and Montrul argue that option (7b)
represents a case of “implicit coercion” of the lexical aspectual class of an
achievement verb (i.e., llegar) into a habitual activity, prompted by the use of
the adverbial clause that precedes it (e.g., durante muchos meses).
(7) a. Ayer el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde.
Yesterday the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
b. Durante muchos meses el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde.
For months the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
In contrast, Slabakova and Montrul argue that “grammatically-induced shifts

signal aspectual transitions by means of overt grammatical elements” (2002,
p. 633). For instance, tense markers trigger the change from a state
interpretation of saber to a telic event interpretation.
(8) a. Juan sabía (IMP) la verdad.
[state]
Juan knew the answer.
b. Juan supo (PRET) la verdad.
[telic event]
Juan found out the answer.
The distinction proposed by Slabakova and Montrul is based on the argument

that there is a contrast between grammatical and pragmatic knowledge. This
is an important claim given that Slabakova and Montrul further argue that the
assessment of ultimate attainment in L2 acquisition can only be determined at
the level of the grammatical representation of language, whereas knowledge
about pragmatics lies outside of language knowledge per se.
3.2. Iterativity as grammatical knowledge
On the other hand, Ziegeler (2007: 999), for instance, points out that the
solution of using syntactic means to resolve semantic conflicts (i.e., coercion)
is not adequate and argues instead for a process of grammaticalization and
historical change. For instance, she contends that the generalization of the use
of the English progressive with dynamic verb types (e.g., she was winning, he
was dying) can be regarded ‘as part of the shift towards the verb end of the
noun-to-verb continuum’ in the transition of English (p. 1020). In fact, even
if some of the information about aspectual knowledge were to be regarded as
‘pragmatic’ in nature (i.e., conventional meanings in Smith’s terms), it could
eventually become part of the grammatical system. On this point, Ziegeler
surmises that “transitory pragmatic inferencing strategies may eventually be
adopted and generalised across entire populations of users, and across entire
paradigmatic domains of usage, where they may become conventionalised in
usage, and henceforth no longer identifiable as changes” (p. 1022).
In this regard, a potential expansion of Ziegeler’s proposed process of
grammaticalization of meanings can be instantiated in particular uses of the
Spanish Preterite and Imperfect in association with the notions of iterativity
and habituality. For instance, let us review the distinct representation of these
two aspectual notions in sentences (9) and (10) 3.
(9) a. Durante mi infancia, el tren del mediodía llegaba (IMP) tarde.
During my childhood, the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
b. ?Durante mi infancia, el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde
During my childhood, the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
(10) a. ?Durante muchos años, el tren del mediodía llegaba (IMP) tarde
For years, the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
b. Durante muchos años, el tren del mediodía llegó (PRET) tarde
For years, the 12 o’clock train arrived late.
Sentence (9a) prototypically represents a habitual and as such it is marked

with the Imperfect, whereas sentence (10b) represents iterativity, thus it
readily accepts the use of the Preterite. Notice, though, that switching the
adverbials between sentences makes the alternatives (9b) and (10a) less
acceptable. Why would this be the case ? A possible answer is that these
particular associations represent a first stage of grammaticalization by which
specific adverbials are associated with specific aspectual concepts (not unlike
the association of some relative clauses with the subjunctive). Notice also
that the only potential difference in meaning between these adverbial clauses
is the magnitude of the time-span denoted by each one (i.e., mi infancia
3
The examples are an expansion of test sentences from Slabakova and Montrul
(2002, 2007).
versus muchos años). Interestingly, however, it is not possible to offer any

categorical response to the question of which time span is longer (cf. Comrie,
1985; Michaelis, 2004). For instance, while my childhood (mi infancia) could
comprise a period of time starting at age 1 or 2 (after one is a baby) until age
12 or so (when one becomes an adolescent), the phrase for years (muchos
años) may refer to 10, 20 or 30 years.
In sum, in the absence of any extralinguistic information, I conclude
that sentences (9a) and (10b) are mirror images of each other in terms of
syntactic structure. Their major differences are in the realm of lexical
knowledge (as represented by the time magnitude conveyed by the adverbial)
and morphological knowledge (as represented by the use of perfective or
imperfective marker on the verb). Thus, it is not possible to claim that in one
case (i.e., 9a) the selection of past tense marking is due to a morphosyntactic
factor, whereas in the other one (i.e., 10b) the selection of past tense marker
would be due to pragmatic factors. In essence, the interpretation of both
sentences is determined by the same phenomena, whether it is
morphosyntactic or pragmatic 4.
4. The L2 acquisition of iterativity
Irrespective of which position one takes with regards to the representational

nature of iterativity (i.e., as grammatical or as pragmatic knowledge), the few
studies that have analyzed empirical data show that Spanish L2 learners have
difficulties to process iterated meanings of telic events as shown in examples
(7b), (8b) and (10b). In this section, I will propose that the current Spanish
4
It should be noted that there have been additional interpretations of the
distinction between habituality and iterativity as a grammatical process. For
instance, using Klein’s distinction between Topic Time (TT) and Situation Time
(TSit), Starren (2001: 150-154) equates habituals with a single TSit associated
with several TTs, whereas iteratives are represented by several TSits associated
with a single TT. More specifically, Starren argues that in sentences like [Each
winter I get a “big” anti-influenza vaccination] and [I am always -each
morning- awake at eight o’clock], “the situation time … is hooked up to a series
of topic times (quantified by the adverb = all time spans), by which the
utterance acquires a typical imperfective meaning of habituality” (p. 150). In
contrast, Starren argues, in iteratives as in [Last year I had accidents, again and
again], the utterance structure makes reference to a series of situations (complex
Tsit) “(consisting of separate phases of the situation, quantified by) linked to
one topic time” (p. 152). I believe, however, that this explanation is inadequate
to take into account examples represented by iterative sentences reviewed above
such as [For years, the train arrived late]. In essence the above-mentioned
iterative sentences have more than one TT, a fact that stands in contrast with
Starren’s explanation and that needs to be further analyzed.
L2 data on the acquisition of iterativity can be accounted for by the claim of a

default past tense marker. That is, Spanish L2 learners rely on a general
cognitive processing approach to develop an understanding of iterativity.
4.1. The default past tense hypothesis
Several researchers have proposed that the perfective form is the more basic
one of the perfective-imperfective contrast (e.g., Binnick, 1991; Comrie,
1985; Fleischman, 1990). Applied to Spanish, this claim entails that the
Preterite is the basic past tense marker, whereas the Imperfect is a more
straightforward aspectual marker. Indeed, Doiz-Bienzobas (1995, 2002)
claims that several depictions of the perfective-imperfective contrast seem to
indicate that the perfective acts like a straight tense marker, whereas the
imperfective functions as a true aspectual marker because the “Imperfect
does not interact with the boundedness of the situations” (p. 32)5. Thus, in the
following sentence she argues that the contrast in meaning between the
Preterite and the Imperfect is related to a view of the given situation from a
past viewpoint (11a) marked with the Imperfect, or alternatively from speech
time (11b), the latter marked with the Preterite.
(11) a. El sermón me parecía (IMP) eterno.
The sermon seemed interminable.
b. El sermón me pareció (PRET) eterno.
The sermon seemed interminable.
Doiz-Bienzobas proposes that the Preterite makes reference to a

situation at a past time that is relative to a reference point most likely
equivalent to speech time. Its function is purely temporal. In contrast, the
Imperfect makes reference to a situation at a past time from the perspective
of a past viewpoint relative to the speaker’s position at speech time or a
reference point, the situation it modifies is conceptualized in the past (i.e., the
deictic reference to speech time is being downplayed). As a consequence,
when the imperfective form is used, the situation is not necessarily
temporally specified. That is the “presence of a past viewpoint away from the
speaker’s position and absence of temporal specification of the situation may
be used for expression of notions other than the purely temporal; the exact
interpretation or use of the sentences with the imperfect is determined by the
context” (p. 29) 6.
5
In keeping with Depraetre’s (1995) principled distinction between boundedness
and telicity, Doiz-Bienzobas reference to boundedness may be reinterpreted as a
reference to telicity.
6
The notion of a default past tense marker is not unique to Langacker or Doiz-
Bienzobas. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997: 174), for instance, propose that the
4.2. Empirical data on L2 knowledge about default past tense markers
The previous theoretical argument about the possible existence of a default

marker of past tense can be ascertained with data from L2 learners, especially
the ones who are just starting to develop their L2. For instance, the following
example taken from an oral interview between a native speaker and a second
semester learner of Spanish (cited in Salaberry, 2004) serves to illustrate the
claim about the potential use of the Preterite as a default marker of past tense
in the acquisition of Spanish among English native speakers:
(12) a. NS: ¿Si? ¿De dónde eran (IMP) tus profesores de la secundaria?
b.NNS: ¿De dónde eran (IMP)? ... Fueron (PRET) de California y ..
Maryland.
First, the fact that the learner is considering two different past tense forms of
the verb is a good indication that she understands the need to mark past tense
on the given verb (and also marked morphologically in English, the learner’s
native language: L1 transfer). Second, note that the learner’s repetition of
imperfective eran signals that the learner understood the form used by the
interlocutor. Despite such repetition of the imperfective form, however, the
learner insisted on using a perfective form in her answer (fueron). Finally,
notice that the imperfective form of the verb (to be) is usually the most
common in most input environments provided to learners. In other words,
frequency in the input would have favored the use of the Imperfect.
Nevertheless, the use of the perfective form was clearly preferred to mark the
verb in past tense.
To the best of my knowledge, the first study to advance the notion of a
default marker of past tense, was the one carried out by Wiberg (1996) in
which she argued for the effect of an unmarked past tense hypothesis on the
basis of the analysis of L2 Italian data. Salaberry (1997, 1999) further
ascertained the potential role of a default past tense marker among fifteen
college-level L2 Spanish learners (from second to fifth semester of
instruction) through oral retellings of a short film excerpt. The most
important finding of this study was that the least proficient learners did not
use the Imperfect during the first or the second session of data collection.
Interestingly, these learners had received explicit instruction and practice on
the use of the Imperfect during the two weeks prior to the session when they
imperfect - embedded in a past tense - expresses simultaneity, thus acting as a

‘present-in-the-past.’ Thus, in [Mario told me that Juan ate/was eating an apple],
the use of eating in the imperfective focuses the speaker’s attention on the
moment when Mario was watching Juan eat an apple. In contrast, the use of the
main verb in the perfective moves our ‘viewpoint’ to the moment the speaker
utters the sentence.
produced their second oral narratives (the Preterite had been introduced
before the first session). On the other hand, the more experienced learners
(from third to fifth semester) used the Preterite and Imperfect in close
association with the value of lexical aspectual classes. That is, the use of the
perfective form was associated with telic events and, vice-versa, the use of
the imperfective form was associated with states. Furthermore, the influence
of lexical aspect increased constantly as a function of proficiency in the L2.
In sum, Salaberry proposed that during the initial stages of L2 development,
L1 English speakers use the Spanish Preterite as a default marker of past
tense across lexical aspectual classes. In contrast, the role of lexical aspect
becomes relevant as experience with the language increases (i.e., third to fifth
semester).
On the other hand, some studies have provided conflictive findings that
raise questions about the use of the perfective form as a default past tense
marker. For instance, Salaberry (2003) showed that in certain narratives
containing a preponderance of verbs in background clauses, the preferred
past tense form might be the Imperfect (and not the Preterite). Salaberry
attributed this finding to the confounding effect of factors such as grounding
(background) or, perhaps simply the priming effect brought about by the
preponderant use of the Imperfect in background clauses. Following up on
these conflictive findings, Salaberry (2011) compared the relative effect of
inherent lexical aspect and discursive grounding on the use of L2 Spanish
Preterit and Imperfect using a written 40-item text-based multiple-choice task
(a personalized fictional narrative). The findings of the study revealed that
whereas both lexical aspect and grounding were directly correlated with the
choice of past tense marker across all levels of proficiency in Spanish, the
effect of grounding was the only one that reached statistical significance.
Thus, Figure 3 below shows that while the proportional use of the Preterite
remains unchanged in association with foregrounded eventualities (i.e., a
default past tense), the use of the Imperfect gradually increases in association
with the backgrounded eventualities in the narrative.
Figure 3. Distribution of means according to grounding by level of proficiency. Y-

axis: 0=Preterite, 1=Imperfect. X-axis: second semester, third semester, fourth
semester, fifth semester, natives.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
foreground
background
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2nd sem. 3rd sem. 4th sem. 5th sem. Natives
These results provide further evidence about the distinct developmental

trends associated with the use of the Preterite and Imperfect. In sum, the
effect of a default marker of past tense seems to be at work even when we
take into account the effect of grounding.
5. Data on L2 knowledge about iterativity
Although the possible effect of a default marker of past tense has been
proposed to account for empirical data from beginning learners (e.g., Rocca,
2005; Salaberry, 1999, 2003; Wiberg, 1996), more recent studies have
provided evidence to extend its application to more advanced levels of
proficiency (e.g., Antonio, 2007; Granda, 2004; Liskin-Gasparro, 2000;
Lubbers-Quesada, 1999, 2007) 7. In this respect, the concept of iterativity
(representing a more complex learning target than simply punctuality or
habituality) becomes a viable grammatical target to ascertain the possible
effect of a default past tense marker throughout development.
Among one of the first studies to assess the nature of the acquisition of
knowledge about iterativity and habituality, Slabakova and Montrul (2002,
7
Arguably, the Default Past Tense Hyothesis may also be relevant for the
analysis of data from natural learners (e.g., Giacalone-Ramat, 2002) and
heritage learners (e.g., Silva-Corvalán, 1994).
2007) analyzed data from 60 English native speakers (27 advanced and 33
intermediate) and 27 native Spanish speakers. The test instrument was a
grammaticality judgment test that consisted of 49 pairs of sentences testing
six conditions of shifted aspectual interpretations and one set of seven
distractor sentences. The sentences were presented in pairs to test the
meaning contrast of verbs with a basic and a shifted interpretation brought
about by grammatical or pragmatic means. For the purpose of our discussion,
we will only analyze the findings related to the outcome with achievements
in their default punctual representation (sentence 7a above) and their
“shifted” interpretation into iteratives with the addition of an adverbial
(sentence 7b above). The results of the study (summarized on Table 1)
revealed that both advanced and intermediate learners as well as the native
speakers consistently accepted the use of the Preterite with punctual
meanings of the verb (the single arrival of the train). The scores for
intermediate and advanced learners and natives were 4.33, 4.88 and 4.88
respectively. That is, measured on the 5-point scale, all groups strongly
agreed with the grammaticality of that sentence.
Table 1. Results of judgments on a 5-point scale from 1

(unacceptable, “I would never say this”) to 5 (perfect, “I would say this”).
Level Punctual (N=7) Iterative (N=7) Difference
Intermediate 4.34 3.05 1.29
Advanced 4.88 2.89 1.99
Natives 4.88 4.47 0.41
In contrast, the two learner groups rated iterated achievements (exemplified

in sample sentence 7b) two points lower than native speakers on the
grammaticality scale: average scores of 2.89 and 3.05 for advanced and
intermediate learners respectively versus a score of 4.47 for the native
speakers. Thus, it appears that L2 learners are not aware of the meaning of
iterativity conveyed through the Preterite in Spanish (as opposed to the
meaning of habituality that is conveyed with the Imperfect). Interestingly, as
pointed out by Slabakova and Montrul, the difference in scores for the single-
event versus the iterated-event sentences among the intermediate learners
was smaller than the difference among the more advanced group of
informants: a 1.29 differential score for the intermediate learners versus a
1.99 differential score for the advanced learners. Thus, advanced learners
have more trouble than intermediate ones accepting the use of the Preterite
with iterated events.
Another study that investigated the representation of iterativity among
non-native speakers was Pérez-Leroux et al. (2007). In line with the
theoretical argument presented so far, Pérez-Leroux et al. propose that past
habitual sense is expressed with the Imperfect (13a), whereas non-iterative,

single telic events are prototypically expressed with the perfective (13b). On
the other hand, iterativity prompted by the use of iterative adverbials (14a)
and durative adverbials (14b) are expressed with the Preterite.
(13) a. Jugaban en el parque.
The children (habitually) played in the park.
[habitual, imperfect]
b. Los niños se cambiaron de asiento (una vez)
The children exchanged seats (once).
[punctual event, Preterite]
(14) a. Los niños se cambiaron de asiento repetidamente.
The children exchanged seats repeatedly.
[iterative adverbial, Preterite]
b. Los niños se cambiaron de asiento por horas.
The children exchanged seats for hours.
[iterative coercion, Preterite]
Pérez-Leroux et al. analyzed data from 31 students and ten native speakers on
the effects of unique, habitual and iterated situations. The learners were
divided into two levels of proficiency based on course enrollments in second
or third year (13 and 18 respectively). The test instrument was a 30-item
grammaticality judgment task. Each one of the four target conditions was
represented by five examples making up a total of 20 target sentences (there
were also 10 distractor sentences). As shown above, the conditions that
triggered an iterative interpretation were: explicit with the use of an iteration
adverbial (e.g., repetidamente) and implicit with the use of a duration
adverbial (e.g., por días). The following are samples of the test sentences
used by Pérez-Leroux et al. in their study (# = unlikely, less acceptable, √ =
preferred):
(15) a. En su niñez, jugaban (√ IMP) en la calle por las tardes.
b. En su niñez, jugaron (#PRET) en la calle por las tardes.
In their childhood, they used to play / played in the streets in the afternoon.
(16) a. El terremoto sacudió (√PRET) la ciudad a las 8.
b. El terremoto sacudía (#IMP) la ciudad a las 8.
The earthquake shook the city at eight.
(17) a. El terremoto sacudió (√PRET) la ciudad por días.
b. El terremoto sacudía (# IMP) la ciudad por días.
[iterative, implicit coercion]
The earthquake shook the city for days.
(18) a. El terremoto sacudió (√PRET) la ciudad repetidamente.

b. El terremoto sacudía (#IMP) la ciudad repetidamente.
[iterative, explicit coercion]
The earthquake shook the city repeatedly
Participants were asked to judge the acceptability of the sentences on a 5-

point scale ranging from -2 (totally unacceptable) to +2 (totally acceptable).
The unique situation was acceptable with the Preterite, the habitual with the
Imperfect, and both iterated situations were acceptable with the Preterite
only. The grammatically acceptable sentences are marked with √ and the less
acceptable ones are marked with #.
The results of Pérez-Leroux et al. were complex. First of all, the more
grammatically acceptable sentences (all the examples marked with √ above)
did not reveal any significant differences between native and non-native
speakers’ judgments. On the other hand, non-native speakers failed to reject
the less acceptable options (marked with # above) whereas native speakers
did reject them. More importantly, the lack of rejection of ungrammatical
options among L2 learners was more evident in the sentences depicting
iterated eventualities than with the sentences that corresponded to unique
events or habitual conditions (although the statistical analysis did not reveal
any gradience of significance across conditions) 8.
Pérez-Leroux et al. also analyzed the combined results from judgments
on both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. The analysis of the
differential scores between the judgments about grammatical and
ungrammatical sentences showed that the responses from learners were no
different from native speakers’ judgments in all conditions except for their
selection of past tense markers with iterated events (explicit). Based on the
analysis of the differential scores, Pérez-Leroux et al concluded that
«non-native speakers find it easier to reach the target aspectual association
between preterite and unique events. Next, they show mastery of preference
for the imperfective with the habitual condition. … Finally, iteration was
problematic for L2 speakers, particularly when it is processed implicitly, via
aspectual coercion, in the absence of the iteration adverbial» (Pérez-Leroux et
al, pp. 448).
Both the findings from Slabakova and Montrul and Pérez-Leroux et al.
reviewed above seem to indicate that L2 learners of Spanish are not capable
of distinguishing the contrast of iterativity versus habituality expressed in
Spanish through the use of Preterite and Imperfect respectively.
8
Even though Pérez-Leroux et al. argue that there was a gradience in favor of the
unique events (“advanced speakers were able to clearly reject the use of
Imperfect in unique contexts”) the statistical tests did not support this
contention.
On the other hand, the findings from Slabakova and Montrul and Pérez-
Leroux et al. need to be put in perspective given that the learners who
participated in these studies may have not been advanced enough to
demonstrate knowledge of iterativity as opposed to habituality. For that
purpose, Salaberry and Scholes (submitted) analyzed data collected among
more advanced learners (graduate students teaching Spanish) as well as
students whose levels of proficiency are approximately equivalent to the ones
used in previous studies (second and third year academic courses). Salaberry
and Scholes assessed knowledge of iterativity versus punctuality with 24
prompt sentences used by Slabakova and Montrul in their study 9. Salaberry
and Scholes specifically asked participants to rate the grammaticality of each
one of the target sentences on a scale from 1 (completely ungrammatical) to 4
(perfectly grammatical) 10. The mean scores for each group according to the
condition represented in the study are shown on Table 2 below.
Table 2. Results of judgments on a 4-point scale from 1 (unacceptable) to 4 (perfect).

Level Iterative (N=12) Punctual (N=12) Difference
2nd year 2.1 3.4 1.3
3rd year 2.0 3.7 1.7
Graduate 2.4 3.9 1.5
Native 3.3 3.7 0.4
The findings from the study show that no learner group, including the most
advanced graduate students demonstrated knowledge of the concept of
iterativity as distinct from habituality. An outstanding question, however, is
whether non-native speakers made progress in the more basic concept of
boundedness, also conveyed through the use of Preterite and Imperfect. Thus,
in addition to the test of iterativity described above, Salaberry and Scholes
used a 30-item test based on the straight selection of Preterite or Imperfect in
the context of a typical classroom test (test based on Psycho movie used in
9
This procedure ensured a high degree of confidence that the results between
studies were roughly comparable. Nevertheless, Salaberry and Scholes added a
second component to their study: all participants were asked to provide a brief
explanation of the rationale for their judgment.
10
Note that Slabakova and Montrul used a 5-point scale. The 4-point scale was
deemed to be more appropriate to lead participants to make a categorical
decision (i.e., acceptable versus non acceptable). Given the focus of the study on
the more advanced learners, the lack of availability of a “not sure” option was
not regarded as crucial. More importantly, the fact that informants were asked to
describe what they thought it was not grammatically appropriate represented an
adequate measure to determine if learners were indeed focusing on the target
notion assessed in the study (iterativity versus habituality).
Salaberry 1999 and other studies).

The results of this second test were further classified according to
categorical selections of Preterite or Imperfect in percentages in order to
assess levels of homogeneity within groups (cf. Coppieters, 1987). Thus,
given that the selection of Imperfect was assigned a score of 1 and the
selection of the Preterite was assigned a score of 0, all verb selections with a
mean score of 0.8 or higher were regarded as categorical choices of the
Imperfect whereas all verb selections with a mean score of 0.2 or lower were
regarded as categorical choices of the Preterite. Table 3 below presents the
total number of categorical selections according to proficiency level.
Table 3. Categorical selection of Preterit / Imperfect

by level in traditional grammar test
Level N Categorical Choices Percentage of Total
2nd year 24 19 / 30 63%
3rd year 80 24 / 30 80%
Graduate 21 29 / 30 97%
Native 10 30 / 30 100%
What is important to notice in Table 3 is that the results of the traditional test
revealed stratified levels of ability among nonnative speakers according to
proficiency, with the highest level (i.e. graduate students who were teaching
Spanish) approximating native speaker performance 11. In contrast, the results
from the test of iterativity in Table 2 show no such linear development
according to proficiency level. In sum, there is a disconnection between the
results of the traditional test and the iterativity test. The lack of progress in
the understanding of iterativity versus habituality stands in contrast with their
overall linear progress towards understanding the overall use of Preterite and
Imperfect, in the context of other more prototypical uses.
6. Discussion
The empirical findings reviewed so far are based on a limited set of data, thus
they do not lead us to making any categorical conclusions. On the other hand,
the results are enticing enough to support various theoretical proposals that
are worth discussing in more detail. Overall, the combined results of the three
studies on the learning of iterativity versus habituality, reviewed above,
indicate that learners do not achieve native-like knowledge about the
representation of iterativity versus habituality in Spanish past tense
11
These data confirm the existence of at least a minimal degree of separation
between the levels and therefore substantiate the classification system used to
determine proficiency groupings.
morphology. Notice, however, that such aspectual contrast is represented in

English past tense morphology (although through more ambiguous means).
That is, based on information already represented in their L1, English
speakers should be able to notice the distinct representation of iterativity with
the Preterite and habituality with the Imperfect in L2 Spanish. What are the
possible reasons why transfer may not be happening, even at very advanced
levels of proficiency in the L2 ? I discuss three possible reasons that may
account for that outcome.
The first theoretical argument proposed to address the non-native
speakers’ rejection of the use of the Preterite to convey iterativity was that
there was a disconnection between the interface of grammatical and
pragmatic knowledge (Slabakova & Montrul, 2002, 2007). That is,
knowledge about iterativity is part of pragmatics, not syntax. More
specifically, Slabakova and Montrul hypothesized that the (incorrect)
rejection of the use of the Preterite with iterated achievements among non-
natives is due to the high computational cost of pragmatic coercion of
prototypical meanings conveyed through morphosyntactic means. Slabakova
and Montrul further conjectured that, because this failure is associated with
the component of pragmatic knowledge, it does not represent a failure of
grammatical competence; thus ultimate attainment in the area of aspectual
knowledge is possible. This proposal is, however, theoretically problematic
because it is based on a very limited view of the grammatical representation
of aspectual contrasts. That is, it restricts the definition of aspectual
knowledge to the use of information provided by internal arguments (object)
and external arguments (subject) only, disregarding the effect of adverbials.
Thus, such a representation of aspect restricts the value of aspectual contrasts
to mostly prototypical meanings already represented at the level of lexical
aspect. In essence, leaving the effect of adverbials outside of the realm of
analysis of aspectual concepts as grammatical knowledge leads us to
confound the levels of representation of lexical and grammatical aspect 12.
Another theoretical argument advanced by Pérez-Leroux et al, proposes
a semantic selectional approach (as opposed to a feature-based approach as
discussed by Slabakova and Montrul): “[u]nder a selectional approach to
tense and aspect interpretation, the acquisition of aspectual distinctions could
be asymmetrical, as learners could in principle determine the (s)emantic-
selectional features of each head independently” (p. 443). Pérez-Leroux et al
12
Note that the previous literature on the role played by adverbials in the
composition of aspectual information has been vague. For instance, Smith
(1997: 2, emphasis added) argues the following: [s]ituation type is conveyed by
the verb constellation, which I define as a main verb and its arguments,
including subject. Viewpoint is conveyed by a grammatical morpheme, usually
verbal. Adverbials may give relevant information…
argue that this theoretical proposal leads us to consider the possibility of a

default past tense marker in the process of acquiring L2 Spanish: “[t]his
opens the possibility that target performance could be attained with one
morpheme, while a divergent representation is retained for the other.” That is
to say, the aspectual restrictions associated with the Preterite are learned
separately from the ones that correspond to the Imperfect. More importantly,
the Preterite, as an overall marker of past tense that works across lexical
aspectual classes, would be learned first. The system would become more
complex as the Imperfect is incorporated to the L2 interlanguage. In
principle, I agree with this proposal as I have argued before (Salaberry, 1999,
2000, 2002, 2003).
Pérez-Leroux et al’s proposal is not, however, without problems given
the contrast in the results from grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.
That is, Pérez-Leroux et al showed that learners are no different from native
speakers in their judgments of all types of grammatical sentences, but they
are categorically different in their judgments of ungrammatical sentences.
Thus, learners had trouble with both the perfective and imperfective marker
at the same time (ungrammatical sentences), or with neither one at the same
time (grammatical sentences). More specifically, the lack of rejection of both
perfective and imperfective past tense markers in ungrammatical contexts
reveals inconsistencies of judgments across the board (from unique events to
iterated events). The lack of native-like performance with habitual sentences
is especially important. That is, learners incorrectly judged the use of the
Preterite in habitual contexts as appropriate. Thus, we cannot uphold the
claim that learners can use the Preterite in a target-like manner.
Finally, Salaberry and Scholes argue that the development of a
representation of aspectual meanings among adult L2 learners is determined
by two factors: a) the relevance of a primordial past tense marker within the
framework of Cognitive Linguistics (cf. Doiz-Bienzobas, 1995, 2002), and b)
the distinct nature of the processing of grammatical information among
mature adults (cf. Bley-Vroman’s 1989 Fundamental Difference Hypothesis).
In other words, adult L2 Spanish learners are guided by the use of a default
marker of past tense during beginning as well as more advanced stages of
development of knowledge about aspect contrasts. Overall, the findings from
Salaberry and Scholes show the apparent lack of “recovery” from the
incorrect overgeneralization of the use of the Imperfect with all iterated
eventualities in the past (regardless of whether they are iterative or habitual)
among very advanced learners of Spanish. That is, L2 learners associate the
notions of both iterativity and habituality with the use of the Imperfect. The
findings from Salaberry and Scholes also show that there is a disconnection
between the learners’ judgments about prototypical uses of the Preterite and
Imperfect (as represented in the traditional test) compared to the judgments
about the contrast of iterativity versus habituality. In practical terms, it is
difficult to argue that non-native speakers can achieve ultimate attainment in

the representation of aspectual concepts when they seem to be so distinct
from native speakers even at highly advanced levels of overall proficiency in
the L2 (cf. Coppieters, 1987; Labeau, 2005). Let us discuss the latter claim in
more detail.
Interestingly, the possibility that adult L2 learners cannot recreate a
second linguistic system separate from their native language leads us back to
the possible effect of transfer. As stated above, English speakers already have
a representational knowledge of iterativity versus habituality (Comrie, 1985;
Langacker, 1999). To answer this conundrum, we should remember that not
all components of the L1 that correlate with relevant components of the L2
are guaranteed to transfer (e.g. Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi &
Håkansson, 2005). If we assume that L2 learners approach their learning task
with the help of general learning mechanisms (cf. Bley-Vroman’s 1989
Fundamental Difference Hypothesis), we can expect some oversimplification
and overgeneralizations 13. That is, through transfer from their native
language, L1 English speakers may initially assume that the category Simple
Past corresponds to the Preterite and that uses of the periphrastic progressive
are largely equivalent to the Imperfect. Learners would of course use these
generalizations as rules of thumb, quickly realizing there are exceptions to
them. The use of these basic generalizations is eventually complexified with
the use of additional mostly lexically-based “patches” (cf. lexical aspectual
categories or specific verbs) that help learners reconcile their overly
simplified system with the available data from the L2. As a first crude
approximation, these broad generalizations do a good job of providing
learners with a usable heuristic. Importantly, as learners become more
experienced with the L2, their system does not necessarily go through
qualitative changes. Thus, the L2 system of aspectual distinctions does not
“evolve” out of the use of the L1 correlates that most closely approximate the
use of the Preterite and Imperfect (Simple Past and Progressive). Thus, the
core of the system remains highly simplified.
The argument that L2 learners develop a limited representation of the
concepts of iterativity and habituality in L2 Spanish seems to be corroborated
by two important findings from the studies reviewed above. First, no matter
the amount of experience with the L2, learners do not seem to “grow out” of
the most basic association of aspectual contrasts represented in English with
similar contrasts represented in Spanish (e.g., boundedness). The fact that
more nuanced representations (i.e., iterativity versus habituality) present in
the L1 are not represented in the L2 is revealing of the fact that learners
13
Alternatively, within the framework of Labeau’s (2005) analysis, we should
expect a movement back and forth (a “pendulum swing”) of representational
values assigned to specific aspectual markers.
continue to rely on a limited representation of aspectual contrasts. Second,

the judgments of L2 learners are selectively impaired. For instance, the
findings from Pérez-Leroux et al. show that learners are more likely to be
mistaken in their judgments of the ungrammatical conditions. For instance,
learners tend to incorrectly accept the use of the Imperfect with unique and
iterated contexts (that should be marked with Preterite), and vice-versa they
tend to incorrectly accept the use of the Preterite with habitual contexts (that
should be marked with Imperfect).
Further compounding this effect brought about by a selective process of
L1 transfer, instruction tends to focus on prototypical combinations of lexical
aspect and grammatical aspect. Thus, by and large, instructional procedures
and rules tend to mirror and confirm the rules of thumb that the students may
develop through their L1 knowledge. For instance, Pérez-Leroux et al. point
out that grammatical instruction provided in academic programs does not
distinguish the aspectual meaning of habituality expressed with the Imperfect
and the iterative meaning expressed with the Preterite. In other words, if
learners have access to only explicit instruction to develop their L2 system,
we should expect them to mistakenly use the imperfective marker with
iterated, non-habitual events. In essence, thus, both transfer and instructional
procedures in combination may lead learners astray from the target of
correctly representing knowledge about iterativity with the Preterite in
contrast with the representation of knowledge about habituality with the
Imperfect.
7. Conclusion
The outcome of all three studies reviewed above seems to indicate that L2
learners of Spanish are not capable of distinguishing the contrast of iterativity
versus habituality expressed in Spanish through the use of Preterite and
Imperfect respectively. Among the major theoretical claims proposed to
account for this empirical outcome so far, the proposal about the dissociation
between grammatical and pragmatic means was discounted due to the highly
constrained interpretation of the semantic meaning assigned to aspectual
contrasts. On the other hand, I have favored the claim about the possible
effect of a default past tense marker as the empirical reflex of an
impoverished representational system of aspectual distinctions in L2 Spanish.
In this respect, Salaberry and Scholes’ proposal is very similar to the one
proposed by Pérez-Leroux et al, except for the fact that Salaberry and
Scholes assume that the default marker of past tense is relevant for both
beginning as well as experienced users of the L2 (see also Salaberry 2005,
2008). That is, the apparent role of a default marker of past tense among
proficient speakers of the L2 may be indicative of an L2 system that is
differentially represented among L1 and L2 speakers.
References
Antonio, T. (2007). Aspectual Performance and Selection by Advanced

Speakers of Spanish. Austin, TX: University of Texas-Austin.
Binnick, R. (1991). Time and the Verb. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language
learning ? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
41-68.
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-
native speakers. Language 63: 544-573.
Depraetre, I. (1995). On the necessity of distinguishing between
(un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1-19.
Doiz-Bienzobas, A. (1995). The Preterite and the Imperfect in Spanish: Past
Situation vs. Past Viewpoint. Unpublished PhD, University of
California-San Diego, San Diego.
Doiz-Bienzobas, A. (2002). The preterit and the imperfect as grounding
predications. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of
Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 299–347.
Filip, H. (1999). Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New
York: Garland Publishing.
Fleischman, S. (1990). Tense and Narrativity. London: Routledge.
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to
Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Granda, B. (2004). La expresión de la temporalidad en textos narrativos en
español como segunda lengua por anglohablantes. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico,
DF.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge.
Labeau, E. (2005). Beyond the Aspect Hypothesis: Tense-aspect development
in advanced L2 French. New York: Peter Lang.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical
perspectives. Stanford, California: Standford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2000). The use of tense-aspect morphology in Spanish
oral narratives: Exploring the perceptions of advanced learners.
Hispania 83(4): 830-844.
Lubbers-Quesada, M. (1999). The acquisition of aspectual distinction in
Spanish: A look at learners in an immersion program. Paper presented
at the 6th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Lubbers-Quesada, M. (2007). La percepción de las propiedades semánticas y

la adquisición de la morfología verbal en el español como L2. Estudios
de Linguística Aplicada, 44: 11-36.
Michaelis, L. (2004). Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated
Approach to Aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1-67.
Pérez-Leroux, A., Cuza, A., Majzlanova, M., & Sánchez-Naranjo, J. (2007).
Non-native recognition of the iterative and habitual meanings of
Spanish preterite and imperfect tenses. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl & H.
Goodluck (eds), Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 432-451.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005).
Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In M. Pienemann
(ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 85-116.
Rocca, S. (2005). Italian tense-aspect morphology in child L2 acquisition. In
D. Ayoun & R. Salaberry (eds), Tense and Aspect in the Romance
Languages: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 129-178.
Salaberry, R. (1997). The Development of Spanish Past Aspect among Adult
L2 Academic Learners. Cornell, Ithaca, NY.
Salaberry, R. (1998). The development of aspectual distinctions in classroom
L2 French. Canadian Modern Language Review 54(4): 504-542.
Salaberry, R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in
classroom L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 20(2): 151-178.
Salaberry, R. (2000). The Development of Past Tense Morphology in L2
Spanish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Salaberry, R. (2002). Tense and aspect in the selection of past tense verbal
morphology. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (eds), Tense-Aspect
Morphology in L2 Acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 397-415.
Salaberry, R. (2003). Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania 3(86):
559-573.
Salaberry, R. (2004). El uso de las distinciones aspectuales del español en
tres actividades con diferentes grados de control. In M. Lubbers-
Quesada & R. Maldonado (eds), Estudios sobre la Adquisición del
Español. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 102-
127.
Salaberry, R. (2008). Marking Past Tense in Second Language Acquisition: A
theoretical model. London / New York: Continuum.
Salaberry, R. (2011). Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on
the acquisition of L2 Spanish Preterit and Imperfect among L1 English
speakers, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 14(2): 184-202.
Salaberry, R., & Scholes, J. (submitted). Knowledge of iterativity and
habituality among advanced learners of Spanish.

Slabakova, R., & Montrul, S. (2002). On aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In
Skarabela (ed.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on
Language Development 26. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 631-
642.
Slabakova, R., & Montrul, S. (2007). L2 acquisition at the grammar-
discourse interface: Aspectual shifts in L2 Spanish. In J. Liceras, H.
Zobl & H. Goodluck (eds), Formal Features in Second Language
Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 452-483.
Smith, C. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Press.
Starren, M. (2001). The Second Time: The Acquisition of Temporality in
Dutch and French as a Second Language. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
LOT.
Verkuyl, H. (1993). A Theory of Aspectuality: the Interaction between
Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wiberg, E. (1996). Reference to past events in bilingual Italian-Swedish
children of school age. Linguistics 34: 1087-1114.
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics
39: 990-1028.
After process, then what ? A longitudinal investigation
of the progressive prototype in L2 English
Kathleen BARDOVI-HARLIG
Indiana University
1. Introduction
This paper explores the development of the progressive in L2 English from

its prototypical meaning of process and continuousness to less prototypical
uses of repetition and futurate. There have been many descriptions of the
English progressive in adult native-speaker use in various frameworks. This
study adopts a prototype account of the progressive to investigate L2
development (e.g. Gass & Ard 1984; Andersen & Shirai 1996) because
prototype accounts offer an ordered relationship among the possible
meanings of the progressive and have proven to be informative in
understanding form-meaning associations in second language acquisition.
The best known prototype account in L2 acquisition is the aspect
hypothesis, which accounts for prototypical associations between verbal
morphology and lexical aspectual categories that share compatible semantics
(Andersen 1991; Andersen & Shirai 1996; Bardovi-Harlig 1998, 2000);
Giacalone Ramat (1997) calls this the principle of selective association. The
spread of the perfective past from its prototypical association with events has
been well documented in L2 acquisition and comes from a variety of target
languages including English, Spanish, French, Italian, Catalan, Dutch, and
Japanese. (See Bardovi-Harlig 2000 for a review). However, investigation of
the progressive has been less enthusiastically addressed in L2 research and is
generally the by-product of investigating the acquisition of the past (Bardovi-
Harlig, 2005b). Notable exceptions to this are studies by Giacalone Ramat
(1997) on Italian, Shirai and colleagues on Japanese (Shirai & Kurono 1998;
Sugaya & Shirai 2007), and Gass and Ard (1984) on English. Just as the
association of verbal morphology to lexical aspectual category can be viewed
from a prototype account, the semantics of grammatical aspect itself can also
be viewed from a prototype analysis, from the most to least prototypical
meaning.
These two prototype characterizations are the starting point for this
paper. The aspect hypothesis predicts that “in languages that have
progressive aspect, progressive marking begins with activities, then extends
to accomplishments and achievements” (Andersen & Shirai 1996: 533). The
internal structure of the progressive (grammatical) aspect, from prototype to
marginal members has been posited to be: Process (activity >
accomplishment) > iterative > habitual or futurate > stative progressive
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 131-151.

132 Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig
(Andersen & Shirai 1996: 558). Each describes a different potential route in
the development of the progressive in second language acquisition. The
comparison of the two potential paths suggest these research questions:
Beginning with the prototypical association of progressive with activities,
does progressive retain its core meaning of process and begin to associate
with other aspectual categories ? Or starting at the same point, does the
progressive begin to show iterative, habitual, and futurate readings while still
associating with activities ? In other words, is the expansion of the meaning
of the progressive in second language acquisition better characterized by
movement across lexical aspectual categories or by the integration of
iterative, habitual, or futurate meanings within categories ?
The following sections present a brief overview of the meanings
attributed to the progressive in English, review the L2 research on the
acquisition of the progressive in English and other languages, and then report
on the expansion of the progressive from prototypical to nonprototypical uses
in a longitudinal study of 16 learners of English as a second language.
2. The English progressive
Binnick (1991: 281) observes that “the English progressive has proven
intractable and its analysis controversial...no one has ever specified in a
completely satisfactorily general way how it is used,” adding that “no one has
convincingly argued for any one basic meaning for it, but neither has anyone
established that it lacks one” (pp. 281-282) 1. As an illustration, consider
Mindt’s (2000) account of the progressive which identifies no fewer than
nine meanings, including (1) Incompletion, (2) Temporariness, (3) Iterative /
habit, (4) Highlighting / prominence, (5) Emotion, (6) Politeness / down-
toning, (7) Prediction [future], (8) Volition / intention [future], and (9)
Matter-of-course. More conservatively, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and
Svartvik (1985: 198) list three main components of the meaning of the
progressive, not all of which need to be present in a single reading: (1) the
happening has duration, (2) the happening has limited duration, and (3) the
happening is not necessarily complete.
Binnick (1991) identifies four major characterizations of the
progressive: durative (grammatical) aspect; action in process or progress;
incompletion (or lack of necessary completion); and progressive of the frame
(providing a frame for another event or situation). Binnick provides
counterexamples to each one, supporting the claim that no one approach
adequately accounts for all meanings of the progressive.
1
It is certainly fortunate for second language learners that acquisition does not
depend on a satisfactory linguistic analysis of a given target.
A longitudinal investigation of the progressive prototype in L2 English 133
In addition to the basic meanings identified by Quirk et al. and Binnick

are intensity, emotional highlighting, or subjective involvement (attributed
originally to Jespersen 1931) and habituality (which Binnick points out
clashes with temporariness, but Quirk et al. describe as habitual over a
limited period). Quirk et al. list the futurate meaning of the progressive as a
minor “other use” (p. 210), whereas Binnick cites it as further complicating
the problem of the progressive because it does not share features with the
other meanings 2.
Römer’s (2005) account of the progressive, based entirely on corpus
data from the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Bank of English (B of E),
British speakers, identifies two main features, continuousness and repeatedness,
which constitute the core meaning of the progressive 3. Predicates which are
[+ continuous] report single, uninterrupted events or actions that occur over a
period of time; predicates which are [– continuous] report short term actions
or events, or actions or events that occur over a period of time, but are
interrupted. Predicates which are [+ repeated] report an event or action that
occurred more than once; predicates which are [– repeated] report a single
event or action. These may co-occur or they may dissociate, and in
combination account for most of the tokens in the corpus, in accordance with many
of the intuitional accounts of the progressive: 82% of the progressives are
[+continuous], 18% are [–continuous]; 39% are [+repeated], 61% are
[-repeated]. (B of E rates of use are given here; the BNC rates of frequency
are within 1% of those reported by B of E.) The features combine into two
main categories: [+continuous, –repeated] at 53% of the progressives
(Examples 1a and b) and [+continuous, +repeated] at 29% (B of E; Examples
2a and b).
(1) a. We currently running about 15 minutes late
b. We are not talking here about the needs and desires of a son…
(2) a. He was spending nearly 40 hours a week on governors’ business
b. I’ve been giving talks on communications [Römer, 2005 p. 91]
2
In contrast, Dowty (1979: 157) does attempt to provide a formal account of both
the progressive and futurate. He proposes to “treat the ‘futurate progressive’ as
imperfective progressive combined in a purely compositional way with a
sentence in the tenseless future.” Such an account is beyond the scope of the
current paper.
3
I recognize the potential mismatch between British corpora and the analysis of
production data of learners of American English. There is no comparable corpus
analysis of American English available for the progressive; Römer’s work
(Römer, 2005; Nusselhauf & Römer, 2007) focuses solely on the progressive
and has linguistic detail that is compatible with linguistic analysis of
interlanguage.)
2.1. The progressive and lexical aspectual categories
Predicate type plays a significant role in the use and meaning of the
progressive. The progressive is unremarkably associated with activities
(ACT) and accomplishments (ACC). In fact, this association is made use of
in tests of lexical aspectual categories as in the progressive test described by
Dowty (1979: 55). Statives disallow progressive as shown in (3a).
(3) Only non-statives occur in the progressive:
a. *John is knowing the answer (STA)
b. John is running (ACT)
c. John is building a house (ACC)
Achievements are not subject to the test (which Dowty annotated with “does
not apply”) because the progressive with achievements forces or coerces a
repeated reading. As Binnick (1991) observes, the progressive occurs with
achievements (ACH) in series (i.e. repeated events), as in (4).
(4) a. Sue is jogging (ACT)
b. Sue is repairing the plumbing (ACC)
c. Sue is noticing a lot of drunks on the street these days (ACH series)
In addition to the repeated events reading, the progressive triggers other

restricted readings with achievements such as a focus on the preliminary
stages of events with no information as to its outcome as in (5) (Smith 1997:
172).
(5) a. Bright Star was winning the race
b. Helen was reaching the top
c. ?Mary was finding her watch
Continuous readings of progressive with achievements such as just at

this moment I am noticing a stain on his shirt do not typically occur,
presumably because achievement expressions denote events occurring at
instants of time, and are therefore incompatible with the process or
continuous meaning of the progressive. Whereas activities and
accomplishments have internal stages (Smith 1997) and are thus compatible
with the progressive, achievements as instantaneous events do not offer such
an interval.
As a further illustration of the strength of the repeated reading, which
the progressive triggers with telics (and especially with achievements),
consider the interlanguage example in (6), in lieu of the invented examples
that are typically used in the literature.
(6) Because he is going home all summer (Guillermo, Written, Month 8.0)
Although the context suggests that he didn’t intend it, the learner’s use of a
future progressive nevertheless triggers a repeated reading. Go home, is telic
(an accomplishment like other activities plus locatives), and so it is open to
the reading that he will go home over and over again; an alternative reading
draws on the duration of the event to suggest that “going” or traveling will
take all summer. What the learner meant was that he would be home all
summer (the result of going there), but a resultative reading is not available
from the sentence as written without generous interpretation from the reader.
Note that adverbials play an important supporting role in the interpretation of
the progressive. This is well-documented in the tense-aspect literature as well
as in the acquisitional literature (in tense-aspect theory, Dowty 1979; Smith
1997).
Given the strong association of verbal morphology and lexical aspect in
adult native-speaker linguistic systems, it is not surprising that second
language acquisition also shows an interaction of verbal morphology and
lexical aspect. This is captured in the well-known aspect hypothesis: First and
second language learners will initially be influenced by the inherent semantic
aspect of verbs or predicates in the acquisition of tense and aspect markers
associated with or / affixed to these verbs (Andersen & Shirai 1994: 133).
The aspect hypothesis can be broken down into four separate claims
regarding perfective past, general imperfective, progressive, and progressive
with states (Shirai 1991: 9-10; see also Andersen & Shirai 1996: 533). Of
particular interest to this investigation is the specific prediction concerning
the progressive. “In languages that have progressive aspect, progressive
marking begins with activities, then extends to accomplishments and
achievements.” As shown in the section on second language acquisition, the
aspect hypothesis has been supported in L2 acquisition, but the use of the
progressive with achievements is rare, so the later stages of the hypothesized
developmental path have not been documented in detail.
2.2. The progressive as futurate
As the preceding discussion illustrates, the futurate reading of the progressive

is not considered to be a central meaning (Binnick 1991; Quirk et al 1985).
Moreover, because the futurate does not share features with other progressive
meanings, the futurate is more difficult to account for in an integrated
approach, as noted by Binnick (1991). The futurate includes uses in (7).
(7) a. The football match is next week when England are playing (Römer, 2005,
BNC)
b. I’m not coming here anymore (Nusselhauf & Römer, 2007, BNC)
c. and after that he is going to Japan on September (present L2 learner corpus)
The classification of the futurate as a less common function of the

progressive is supported by the corpus data. Römer (2005) reported that the
present progressive is used with future reference in 17.8% of the tokens in the
BNC and 14.7% in the B of E 4.
Within prototype theory, which claims there are best case exemplars of
categories, there have been two attempts at organizing the meanings of the
progressive from most prototypical to least. The first prototype account of
progressives in L2 acquisitional research was proposed by Gass and Ard
(1984) who suggested that descriptions of on-going actions were closer to the
progressive prototype than statements oriented to the future; states with
progressives are the furthest away (as indicated be their ungrammaticality).
The second prototype account, proposed by Andersen and Shirai (1996: 558),
posited a formal statement of the internal structure of progressive
(grammatical) aspect, from prototype to marginal members:
Process (activity > accomplishment) > iterative > habitual or futurate >
stative progressive 5.
This study compares the two prototype accounts of the progressive, from the
perspective of the association of grammatical aspect with lexical aspectual
category (the aspect hypothesis) and the meanings of the progressive itself, as
potential accounts of development as seen in a corpus of learner data from a
longitudinal study. Before considering the longitudinal data, the next section
briefly reviews studies of the progressive in L2 acquisition.
3. The progressive in second language acquisition
The acquisition of the progressive has been investigated in Italian, English,

and Japanese. In a study of 20 untutored adult learners of Italian, 12 of whom
produced progressives, Giacalone Ramat (1995 1997) reported that 85% of
all progressive tokens occur with activities 6. The progressive is much less
4
There are cases that are ambiguous between future and present readings, so the
intended reference to future might be somewhat higher, but cannot be discerned
from the data.
5
Not all linguists adopt the Vendler categories and the corresponding definitions
of and test for lexical aspectual categories. Biber and colleagues (1999) offer
examples of progressive with states, many of which would be activities by the
tests used by Dowty (1979) and others.
6
32 of the 125 activities are mental process verbs. Giacalone Ramat reports these
separately because they are a relatively large group, but states that they are
activities. Dividing the activities into two group yields 63% activities and 22%
with mental processes.
common with accomplishments (8%) and even less common with

achievements (4%) and states (3%). In cross-sectional studies of English,
progressive associates quite robustly with activities (in written cloze
passages, Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds 1995; in written narratives,
Bardovi-Harlig & Bergström 1996; in written and oral narratives,
Bardovi-Harlig 1998; in oral narratives, Robison 1995) 7. Interestingly,
Robison (1995: 356) also found that “the affiliation of progressive marking
with activities strengthens with proficiency level,” even as the association of
inflections with tense increased with level.
Figure 1. Use of progressive by learners in oral and written narratives by grounding
80
70
60
% U s e o f P r o g r e s s iv e
50
ACT
40 ACC
ACH
30
20
10
0
BW FW BO FO
Grounding by Mode
Bardovi-Harlig (1998) reported on the acquisition of progressive in 74

oral and written Modern Times narratives by 37 learners of English as a
second language which yielded 2,779 predicates. The narratives were
analyzed into foreground and background, and the predicates were identified
by lexical aspectual category. The use of the progressive was greater for all
7
Many of the studies reviewed here investigated at least the perfective past in
addition to the progressive.
dynamic verbs in the background than in the foreground, and greater for
activities than accomplishments, and rare for achievements. (Out of 2,779
predicates, 185 of which are progressive, only 15 occur with achievements.)
Using a within-category analysis reveals that in the background of written
narratives, 67% of activities occur with the progressive and in the foreground
13% occur with the progressive. In oral narratives, 41% of background
activities occur in the progressive, and 20% of the foreground activities also
do. In the written and oral narratives, respectively, 28% and 26% of the
background accomplishments occur in the progressive; but only 1% and 5%
of achievements occur in the progressive in the written and oral narratives,
respectively. This is illustrated in Figure 1 (based on data reported by
Bardovi-Harlig 1998). O stands for oral, W for written, F for foreground, and
B for background). Using an across-category analysis shows that in the
written narratives 80% of the progressives occur with activities; in oral
narratives 70% of progressives occur with activities. In other words, the
progressive occurred more often in the background than in the foreground,
and more often with activities than any other aspectual category.
Shirai's (1995) study of three Chinese learners of Japanese as a second
language enrolled in an intensive Japanese program also supports the aspect
hypothesis; these learners also showed dominant use of progressive -te i-
with activities (55% of all uses of -te i- occur with activities). In a second
study of Japanese, the results of a judgment task administered to 17 tutored
Chinese learners of Japanese suggested that "learners found it easier to
recognize the correctness of -te i- with activity verbs" than with achievements
(Shirai & Kurono 1998: 264). The interesting fact about -te i- is that it has a
progressive reading with activities and a resultative reading with
achievements. Suguya and Shirai (2007) investigated the effect of L1 on the
acquisition of the progressive with L2 learners of Japanese from progressive
and nonprogressive languages. The results of a judgment task showed that
regardless of L1, learners responded more appropriately to progressives than
resultatives and low-level groups judged progressive use more correctly for
activities than accomplishments or semelfactives. In the oral production task
progressive readings of –te i- were associated with activities and resultative
with achievements, consistent with the aspect hypothesis.
The first study to investigate the progressive using a prototype account
was Gass and Ard (1984). A series of judgment tasks (judging sentences in
isolation, sentences in short dialogues, and sets of sentences) administered to
L1 Japanese and Spanish learners of English at a range of proficiency levels
(from levels 1 to 6 of a six level intensive English program) showed that
learners rated more prototypical uses such as the action-in-progress reading
of That man is drinking cider higher than nonprototypical uses such as the
futurate John is traveling to New York tomorrow. The ungrammatical or
anomalous readings with states such as Mary is being in Chicago now were
rejected outright when presented in isolation.
Huang (1999) investigated the progressive in the framework of the
aspect hypothesis and added to that the encoding of unitary and repeated
predicates, which adds another dimension to progressive meaning beyond the
association with aspectual categories. Five L1 Chinese learners and three
native-speakers of English participated in 60-90 minute interviews. (Neither
the interviewer nor the interview was described, although the learner and
native-speaker interviews were reported to be similar.) An across-category
analysis was conducted. Across-category analysis is sensitive to the number
of predicates produced in each category; thus the most populated category
will show the highest percentage of use (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002). Learner
production favored the association of progressive with activities to a greater
extent than native speakers did: 76% of all progressives occurred on activities
for learners and 49% for native speakers using a type count (a token count
differs only slightly with 73% and 46%, respectively). This is consistent with
previous findings. The study adds to our understanding of the acquisition of
the progressive by considering its use with unitary and repeated predicates.
Learners and native speakers show opposite distributions: 73% of the
progressives that learners produce occur with unitary predicates and 27%
occur with repeated predicates. In contrast, native speakers produce 31% of
their progressives with unitary predicates and 69% with repeated predicates.
The distribution is difficult to interpret, however, because predicates that are
traditionally considered to be activities were counted as repeated 8.
Because Huang employs an across-category analysis, it is not possible
to separate the number of repeated types or tokens from the report of verb
morphology; nevertheless, there seems to be quite different use between
native speakers and learners (but it may come from the NS using more
repeated events than learners, regardless of marking; only a within category
analysis will tell if repeated events are encoded differently from unitary
events). As Huang (1999: 124) observes, “The use of progressive
morphology in describing unitary situations focuses on the continuous,
ongoing nature of a situation.”
In a longitudinal study of future expression in L2 English, Bardovi-
Harlig (2004a, 2004b) found that the progressive is used very rarely as the
8
Huang’s classification of “repeated” seems to differ from classic aspectual
categorization in that predicates that are comprised of a verb plus an indefinite
object such as bake cookies, do homework, and make records are typically
classified as activities whereas Huang classified them as “repeated.” A more
traditional analysis would regard bake cookies as a single event unless otherwise
indicated as in She baked cookies every week in which each week’s cookie
baking would be considered a single occurrence.
futurate, comprising only 1% of the longitudinal oral corpus (14 predicates

out of 1170 with future reference) and only 2% in the written corpus (40
predicates out of 2567 with future reference). In fact, the progressive is the
least used means of encoding the future in the learner corpus 9.
Just as we saw for accounts of the progressive, second language
acquisition research has not addressed features of continuousness and
repeatedness in the same study as the futurate, with the exception of Gass and
Ard (1984). Using a longitudinal corpus of learner language this study
investigates both features of continuousness and repeatedness and the
futurate as it addresses the following research question: Is the expansion of
the meaning of the progressive in second language acquisition better
characterized by movement across lexical aspectual categories or by the
integration of iterative, habitual, or futurate meanings within categories ?
4. The present study
This study investigates how the meanings associated with the progressive
spread in interlanguage from the most prototypical to less prototypical
readings, and is particularly concerned with repeated and futurate readings 10.
When presenting the progressive prototype
Process (activity > accomplishment) > iterative > habitual or futurate >
stative progressive
Andersen and Shirai (1996) note that achievements are not included in the
process category because when used with progressive they usually have an
iterative, habitual, or futurate reading11. Thus, one way for the interlanguage
grammar to expand the progressive from process to iterative or habitual
readings would be to extend the progressive to achievements as the aspect
9
The order of preference of use in future in L2 English is will (63% in the oral
corpus), then lexical futures (16%; verbs with future meaning such as hope and
plan), going to (7%), base/present (8%), and progressive (1%).
10
It was anticipated that stative-progressives, the most peripheral meaning in the
hypothesized progressive prototype would not be common in this corpus, as
predicted by hypothesis 4 of the aspect hypothesis (Progressive markings are
not incorrectly overextended to statives). This prediction seems to be supported
by learner production on cloze passages (Bardovi-Harlig & Reynolds 1995) and
narrative production (Bardovi-Harlig 1998).
11
Andersen and Shirai (1996) noted that their use of futurate included preliminary
stages of events, examples of which appear in (4). This is not the usual
interpretation of “futurate,” but because they state (p. 558, fn12) that Gass and
Ard’s hierarchy of process→ futurate→stative progressive “is in agreement
with ours”. I assume that they also include future reference as in (5) in this
category.
hypothesis predicts. However, adverbials also play an important role in

meaning and interpretation as shown in the theoretical and acquisitional
literature. Both lexical aspectual category and adverbials will be considered
here.
4.1. Method
The data for this study were collected from 16 adult learners of English as a
second language from daily journals, compositions, oral and written
narratives, and oral interviews, yielding 1,576 written texts and 175 oral
interviews over a span of 15 months.
The learners in this study were enrolled in an intensive English program
at a university in the American Midwest. They represented four language
backgrounds (Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish). Participants were low-
level learners, as measured by their placement in the first of six instructional
levels: all but one learner completed the program at Level 5 or 6.
4.2. Analysis
The predicates in the accumulated language sample for each learner were
coded for morphology, temporal reference, and adverbials. The progressives
were then coded for aspectual repeatedness and lexical aspectual category.
All verb forms were coded morphologically. This report includes only tokens
of present progressive and past progressive. Bare progressives (V+ing with
no auxiliary) were excluded from this analysis. The second conjuncts of
conjoined predicates such as “I'm sitting here in my apartment and Ø+
thinking about the future” (Saleh, Month14.5) were not included in the totals
because the second predicate is always ambiguous between a bare
progressive and a tensed progressive since the auxiliary has been deleted.
All predicates were also coded for temporal reference (cf. Bardovi-
Harlig, 2000). Of particular relevance here are tokens of future expression.
There were 3,737 tokens of future reference encoded by various means:
2,567 in the written corpus and 1,170 in the oral corpus. The progressive
future, or futurate, was coded separately from the go-future (realized in
English as be + going to + Verb; Bardovi-Harlig, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a).
Adverbs were also coded for each predicate in the corpus. They include
adverbs of frequency, duration, time, and when clauses. An adverb-to-verb
ratio (Bardovi-Harlig 1992) was calculated for all progressives, repeated
progressives, and futurate progressives.
Repeated progressives were coded next as a single category, following
Römer (2005): these were identified in context by their adverbs or simply by
their predicates (e.g., Many audience think composers are always playing
[kidding] by music; Idechi, Written, Month 7.5; and Nobody’s waking me up
in the morning. I have to be ready; Eduardo, Oral, Month 5.0). Each repeated
progressive was also coded for lexical aspectual category following Dowty
(1979).
4.3. Results
There were 466 present progressives in the written corpus, and 190 in the oral
corpus, and 301 past progressives in the written corpus, and 139 in the oral
corpus, for a total of 1,096 tokens (Table 1). Out of 1, 096 tokens, 33 tokens
of progressive (3.0%) were used in repeated actions (whether iterative or
habitual) and 54 progressives (4.9%) had future reference (Table 2).
Table 1. Distribution of progressive tokens
Mode
Form Written Texts Oral Interviews
(n=1,576) (n=175)
Present Progressive 466 190
Past Progressive 301 139
Total 767 329
Table 2. Repeated and Futurate Progressives

Total: 1,096 N %
Repeated 33 3.0
Futurate 54 4.9
Adverbials are used more frequently in the repeated and futurate

readings than in the progressive corpus overall (Table 3). Twenty-nine of the
33 repeated readings (88%) occur in an adverbial frame (Table 3, column 4).
There are 31 such adverbials used yielding an adverb-to-verb ratio of .94
because some of the predicates have more than one adverbial (Table 3,
column 3). Forty of the 54 futurate tokens occur with an adverbial yielding an
adverb-to-verb ratio of .74. This is in contrast to the use of adverbials in the
total progressive sub-corpus, for which the adverb-to-verb ratio is only .37
(which includes the adverbials used in repeated and futurate readings). Thus,
adverbials function to assure the nonprototypical reading of the progressive.
Table 3. Adverb-to-verb ratios with progressive readings

Total Sample Repeated Repeated Action Futurate
of Progressives Action (multiple (single adv per
adv per predicate)
predicate)
Verbs 1,096 33 33 54
Adverbs 387 31 29 40
Adverb to .37 .94 .88 .74
verb ratio
4.3.1. Repeated progressives
The 33 repeated predicates were coded for lexical aspectual category: five
telic predicates, four accomplishments and one achievement, have clear
repeated interpretations (Examples 8-11).
(8) Nobody’s waking me up in the morning. I have to be ready. [ACC]
(Eduardo, Oral, Month 5.0)
(9) Three men were once at a bridges. They were saying to everybody who
crossed it – you must tell us where are you going and you will can to pass,
but if you lie as about it, we will kill you. [ACC] (Eduardo, Written, Month
2.5)
(10) At last the bicycle toke the balles then play alon or juggle alon he was
throwing and receiving the balles by its pedals. [ACC] (Zayed, Written,
Month 10.5)
(11) If I am seeing that picture then I can relax and become calm. [ACH]
(Noriko, Written, Month 8.0)
With telic predicates, the progressive can force the repeated reading even
without an explicit adverb as in (9) and (10). It may be argued that the
indirect object to everybody in (9) makes the predicate saying to everybody
an activity because the action is distributed across many times. There was
one case in the corpus where a generic subject rendered an achievement
predicate leave home an activity as in Most Korean women, when they get
married, they are leaving their hom (Ji-An, Written, Month 4.5). In Example
(10) the paraphrase of juggle (an activity) as throwing and receiving the balls
shows that although the individual predicates throw the balls and receive the
balls are accomplishments, their use in the progressive results in a derived
repeated activity made up of telic predicates (Smith 1997). The final example
in (11) is less felicitous than the other examples because of the progressive
form of the achievement see. However, the repeated reading is carried by the
conditional 12.
4.3.1.1. The use of adverbials in repeated progressives
The use of adverbials in conjunction with the progressive to create a reading

of repeatedness is quite common (Table 3). Adverbs of frequency are the
dominant category of adverb used, with duration a distant second (Table 4).
Uses of frequency adverbs are shown in Examples (12) – (16).
(12) I had a part time job in circus, like guard. So everyday I was watching the
circus (Kazuhiro, Oral, Month 10.5)
(13) She always call me, “what did you do ?” uh, we are always talking about
men. (laugh) (Noriko, Oral, Month 15.0,)
(14) She was often asking an important questions (Saleh, Written, Month 12.5)
(15) He was traveling every, every year. Many times. (Saleh, Oral, Month 12.5)
Adverbs may also create a frame, but not occur in the same clause as the
progressive. In Example (16) always creates an adverbial frame for both was
paying attention in (16a) and was eating good food in (16b).
(16) When in my country, I was used to eating in the way how my mother cooks
that is very condimented in comparation with here. a) She was always
paying attention at our alimentation. b) She tried to be sure that our family
was eating good food. c) Right now, I have to care about what I am eating if
it is good or not by myself. (Eduardo, Written, Month 6.5)
Table 4. Adverbs used with repeated progressives

Total Frequency Duration When- Time If-then
Adverbs clause
w/ (time)
repeated n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
progressive
31 20 (65) 4 (13) 3 (10) 3 (6) 1 (3)
Duration adverbs were used in 13% of the repeated progressives. In

(17), the learner uses a when-clause to set up a long duration. Her use of used
to further encourages the repeated reading of looking at us.
(17) When I was a child, my grandfather used to come my house…my father
took us to the park. I used to ride roler coster with my sister. My mother
grandmother were looking at us. (Hiromi, Written, T9.0)
12
Conditionals, including if-then, are classified as adverbials by Thomspon and
Longacre (1985).
Smith observes that duration adverbials cue repeated action when the length
of time specified exceeds the length of time it usually takes to complete an
event. There were three such uses. In (18) call and two days set the frame for
I was talking; similarly in (19) with for all the afternoon and part of the night
support the repeated action of make a phone call; and in (20) with a week
sets the scene for repeated dancing, singing, and playing game.
(18) I just called my family for two days. I was talking with my brother about
that problem (Saleh, Oral, Month 12.5)
(19) Today, after to take the lunch, I came back to my room for to call to
Venezuela and I was making it for all the afternoon and part of the night but
to the end I [page] couldn't speak with my family because the phone always
was busy. (Carlos, L1 Spanish, Written, Month 1.5)
(20) And same time a festival open May, everyear. A festival continue a week.
We are dancing, singing, and playing game with together (Ji-An, Written,
Month 10).
Whereas Example (17) shows a when-clause used to establish duration,

other when-clauses serve as time adverbials (Table 4). These suggest a
repeated reading derived from when which seems to function as whenever in
this corpus, as in Examples (21) and (22). In addition, as mentioned earlier,
the generic subject of (22) further assures the repeated reading.
(21) When I am playing the clarinet at Recital Hall I can feel very good. (Idechi,
Written, Month 7.5)
(22) Most Korean women, when they get married, they are leaving their hom.
They live with their husband's family. (Ji-An, Written, Month 4.5)
Like the uses of when above, the conditional in (11) repeated here as (23)
assures repeated reading by establishing a habitual.
(23) If I am seeing that picture then I can relax and become calm. (Noriko,
Written, Month 8.0)
Only four tokens (12%) appeared with no adverbial support. Among them are
two examples in (9) and (10). As this section shows, the typical repeated
progressive co-occurs with an adverbial which supports or encourages the
repeated reading; although adverbs of frequency are the most common,
different types of adverbials may occur.
4.3.2. Futurate
The progressive as future is more common than the repeated readings in this
corpus; 8% (54 / 647) of the present progressives were future expressions.
But it is relatively rare in the context of future expression. Consider that of
the 3,737 future-referenced predicates in the corpus, only 1.4% were

progressive, as in Examples (24)-(27). 82% of the verbs in the futurate (44 /
54) are either go or come (63% and 19%, respectively). This is consistent
with the high rates of occurrence for going and coming in the BNC reported
by Nusselhauf and Römer (2007) 13.
(24) All people are going home this Thanksgiving. I am going to Oklahoma.
(Eduardo, Written, Month 3.0)
(25) And after that he is going to Japan on September (Hiromi, Written, Month
3.0)
(26) Do you think the snow is coming soon ? (Hamad, Oral, Month 9.5)
(27) In the 2040, our life is getting better than now (Ji-An, Written, Month 5.5)
As shown in the examples as well as Table 4, progressive as future is heavily

marked with adverbials, showing a ratio of adverbs to verbs of .74, or 7.4
adverbs for every ten verbs.
4.3.3. Repeated and futurate by learners
The production data show that not all learners use both repeated and futurate
progressive (Table 5). Five learners show no tokens of repeated uses and four
learners show no uses of the futurate. Only one learner, Sang Wook, shows
use of neither one.
Toshihiro (L1 Japanese) and Guillermo (L1 Spanish) both show greater
than 10 more uses of the futurate than the repeated progressive, and Ji-An
(L1 Korean) shows five. Two learners show almost equal use of the repeated
and futurate progressives, Hiromi (L1 Japanese) and Eduardo (L1 Spanish).
Among learners who show fewer than five uses of either form, there are
learners whose production data show repeated progressives exclusively and
learners who show futurate progressives only. No particular pattern seems to
characterize a particular first language. If one is a prerequisite for the other, it
is not apparent in these production data, as either repeated progressive or
futurate progressive may appear as the first nonprototypical use.
13
Going and coming occur around 1,000 times per 10 millions words, whereas the
next most common set, doing, taking, and getting occur around 500 times.
Table 5. Use of progressive with repeated and futurate meanings by individual

learners throughout the period of observation
Learner L1 Progressive
Predicates Repeated Futurate
Khaled Arabic 93 1 3
Saleh Arabic 110 4 0
Abdullah Arabic 93 0 1
Hamad Arabic 23 0 2
Zayed Arabic 73 1 1
Noriko Japanese 105 4 1
Hiromi Japanese 106 7 5
Kazuhiro Japanese 30 1 1
Satoru Japanese 10 0 2
Toshihiro Japanese 58 1 10
Idechi Japanese 26 3 0
Ji-An Korean 32 2 7
Sang Wook Korean 22 0 0
Carlos Spanish 114 2 1
Guillermo Spanish 40 0 11
Eduardo Spanish 161 7 9
TOTAL 1,096 33 54
4.4. Discussion and conclusion
The data show that L2 learners’ use of progressive morphology occurs

predominately with activities and predominately with continuous reading.
Both the repeated and futurate occur less frequently, consistent with the
internal structure of the progressive posited by Andersen and Shirai (1996)
and for the futurate by Gass and Ard (1984). The data do not suggest that one
emerges in interlanguage before the other. There is evidence of IL grammars
with future readings but without repeated readings. The opposite also obtains,
there are IL grammars with repeated progressive without futurate.
Progressive with statives, which is furthest away from the prototype, was not
investigated in this study.
In this learner corpus, the establishment of a repeated reading for the
progressive did not result from a robust spreading of progressive from
activities to accomplishments then achievements. Only one of the telic
predicates was an achievement; at most, four others were accomplishments.
The majority of predicates that resulted in repeated readings were activities.
The adverb to verb ratio for repeated readings is quite high, .94, or just over 9
adverbs for every 10 verbs. Thus, when the progressive expands from the
prototypical process reading, it is not to achievements as the aspect
hypothesis predicts, but rather to repeated readings with activities through the
use of adverbials. Learners still favor the use of progressive with activities,
and the use of adverbials leads to repeated readings. The resulting multiple-
event activities constitute a derived category which encodes a series of
repetitions with an arbitrary endpoint (Smith 1997). The sub-events may be
of all event types, although the majority in this learner corpus has durative
sub-events. Crucially, as Römer (2005) explains, for native-speaker use of
progressive, continuousness and repeatedness are independent features of the
progressive; this is also the case when interlanguage allows repeated readings
for the progressive.
Whereas the role of the adverbials with telic verbs is to support the
repeated interpretation, with activities the adverbials force the repeated
interpretation. They break the one-to-one association of activities plus
progressive as process readings; without adverbials, activities and
progressive result in a continuous reading. Similarly, progressive futures
have to be marked adverbially precisely because they have neither an
obligatory process reading nor a repeated interpretation.
The use of adverbials, their role in communicating the intended
meaning of, and the interaction of the adverbials and the features of the
progressive support the expansion of the progressive from the prototypical
core to less prototypical readings. Römer presents an analysis of the
progressive that is dominated by two features: continuousness and
repeatedness. In the prototype association of progressive and activities the
feature of continuity is highlighted. In order to effect the spread from process
to repeatedness, adverbials are used. In both cases, the adverbs suppress the
expected reading of the progressive. In the repeated cases the adverbials
suppress the continuity feature, highlighting or introducing the repeated
feature. In the progressive future, the reading is neutral with respect to the
features of [continuousness] and [repeatedness].
The data in this longitudinal study suggest a modest refinement to
Andersen and Shirai’s proposal that the internal structure of the progressive
separates iterative from habitual. It seems that iterative and habitual are not
clearly distinguished in the production data. These can be grouped together as
repeated, as was done by Römer (2005) for native speaker corpus data and
Huang (1999) for L2 learner data. This suggests the following internal
structure for progressive:
Process (activity > accomplishment) > repeated (iterative / habitual) >
futurate > stative progressive.
Iterative / habitual are grouped together or are replaced by the “repeated”

feature. Any type of repeatedness is closer to the prototype since it may use
the same features, whereas the futurate reading may override them both. On
the other hand, if prototype scales are to be interpreted as predicting order of
acquisition, then repeated and futurate should be in the same “stage” because
the longitudinal evidence suggests that either one may emerge first.
The other side of the coin to the claim that progressive spreads from
continuousness to repeatedness and futurate is the observation that learners
are not forever tied to the prototype. As L2 development progresses, they
begin to enjoy what Andersen (1990) called the native speaker advantage and
“verbal virtuosity”: they can make nonprototypical associations for the
purpose of communication. Such examples also demonstrate
multifunctionality. After the initial one-to-one association of progressive to
continuousness, the learners begin to enter a stage of multifunctionality
where one form (the progressive) takes on multiple meanings.
Evidence from this study shows that the spread of the progressive from
its initial associations in interlanguage moves forward in a path consistent
with prototype accounts, but not specifically predicted by the aspect
hypothesis, further suggesting that there may be additional stages in the
spread from durative aspectual categories (activities and accomplishment) to
achievements, at least for the encoding of repeatedness.
References
Andersen, R. W. (1990). Verbal virtuosity and speakers’ purposes, in: H.

Burmeister; P. L. Rounds (eds), Variability in second language
acquisition: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Second Language
Research Forum (Vol. 2), Eugene: University of Oregon, Department of
Linguistics, 1-24.
Andersen, R. W. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect
marking in second language acquisition, in: T. Huebner; C. A. Ferguson
(eds), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic
theories, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 305-324.
Andersen, R. W. (1994). The insider’s advantage, in: A. Giacalone Ramat:
M. Vedovelli (eds), Italiano: Lingua seconda / lingua straniera [Italian:
second language / foreign language], Rome: Bulzoni, 1-26.
Andersen, R. W.; Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some
cognitive acquisition principles, Studies in Second Language
Andersen, R. W.; Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second
language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection, in: W.C.
Ritchie;T.K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of second language acquisition,
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 527-570.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The use of adverbials and natural order in the

development of temporal expression, IRAL 30: 299-320.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring
factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 471-508.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition:
Form, meaning, and use, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Analyzing aspect, in :: R. Salaberry ; Y. Shirai
(eds), Tense-aspect morphology in L2 acquisition, Amsterdam : John
Benjamins, 129-154.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2004a). The emergence of grammaticalized future
expression in longitudinal production data, in : M. Overstreet, S. Rott,
B. VanPatten ; J. Williams (eds) Form and meaning in second language
acquisition, Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum, 115-137.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2004b). Monopolizing the future: How the go-future
breaks into will’s territory and what it tells us about SLA, EuroSLA
Yearbook 4: 177-201.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005a). The future of desire: Lexical futures and
modality in L2 English future expression, in: L. Dekydtspotter; R.
Sprouse (eds), 7th generative approaches to second language
acquisition, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 1-12.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005b). Tracking the elusive imperfect in adult second
language acquisition: Refining the hunt, in: P. Kempchinsky; R.
Slabakova (eds), Aspectual inquiries, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 397-419.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.; Bergström, A. (1996). The acquisition of tense and
aspect in SLA and FLL: A study of learner narratives in English (SL)
and French (FL), Canadian Modern Language Review 52: 308-330.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.; Reynolds, D. W. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the
acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly 29: 107-131.
Biber, D.; Johansson, S.; Leech, G.; Conrad, S.; Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English, London: Longman.
Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Gass, S.; Ard, J. (1984). Second language acquisition and the ontology of
language universals, in: W. E. Rutherford (ed.), Language universals
and second language acquisition 33-68). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1995). L'expression de l'aspect progressif en italien
seconde langue et le rôle des propriétés sémantiques des verbes [The
expression of progressive aspect in Italian as a second language and the
role of semantic properties of verbs, Acquisition et interaction en
Langue Étrangère 5: 47-78.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1997). Progressive periphrases, markedness and

second language data, in: S. Eliasson; E.H. Jahr (eds) Language and its
ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, Berlin: Mouton, 261-285.
Huang, C. (1999). Tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of English and native
English speakers: Inherent lexical aspect and unitary vs. repeated
situation types, Issues in Applied Linguistics 10: 113-129.
Jespersen, O. (1931). A modern English grammar on historical principles.
Part IV: Syntax, Vol. 3. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Mindt, D. (2000). An empirical grammar of the English verb system. Berlin:
Cornelsen.
Nusselhauf, N.; Römer, U. (2007). Lexical-grammatical patterns in spoken
English: The case of the progressive with future time reference,
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 297-333.
Quirk, R.; Greenbaum, S.; Leech, G.; Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Robison, R. E. (1995). The aspect hypothesis revisited: A cross-sectional
study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage, Applied Linguistics
16: 344-370.
Römer, U. (2005). Progressive, patterns, and pedagogy: A corpus-driven
approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts, and
didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shirai, Y. (1991). Primacy of aspect in language acquisition: Simplified input
and prototype. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Shirai, Y. (1995). Tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of Japanese, in: D.
MacLaughlin; S. McEwen (eds), Proceedings of 19th Annual Boston
University Conference in Language Development (Vol. 2), Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press, 575-586.
Shirai, Y.; Kurono, A. (1998). The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in
Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48, 245-279.
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sugaya, N.; Shirai, Y. (2007). The acquisition of resultative and progressive
meanings of the imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese:
transfer, universals, or multiple factors. Studies in Second Language
Thompson, S. A.; Longacre, R. E. (1985). Adverbial Clauses, in: Timothy
Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 171-234.
A case study of tense-aspect marking
by L2 learners of Korean
Hyun-Jin KIM
Indiana University
1. Introduction
The study examines the emergence and the spread of the Korean past /
perfective marker -ess- and the progressive marker -ko iss- in the L2 Korean
of L1 English speakers. Inspired by L2 Japanese studies on -te i- by Shirai
and his colleagues, the study investigates how L2 Korean learners associate
the progressive marker -ko iss-, which is comparable to the English
progressive be –ing, with a resultative meaning as well as a progressive
meaning. This study adopts the aspect hypothesis and the prototype account
to explain the development of the form-meaning association of the past /
perfective 1 and the progressive.
SLA research which addresses the relationship between the emergence
of tense and aspect morphology and the semantics of verbal predicates has
centred on the aspect hypothesis. The aspect hypothesis claims that the
distribution of interlanguage verbal morphology is determined by the lexical
aspectual class of verbs and predicates (Andersen & Shirai 1996; Bardovi-
Harlig 1998; see Li & Shirai 2000, and Bardovi-Harlig 2000 for recent
reviews). The aspect hypothesis consists of four predictions, which can be
summarized as “in the earliest stage, learners will use perfective / past with
achievements and accomplishments, imperfective with states, progressive
with activities, and no overextension of progressive marking to statives”
(Anderson & Shirai 1996: 559; Bardovi-Harlig 2000: 227).
Many empirical studies have addressed the aspect hypothesis and the
support for the first part of the hypothesis about the spread of the perfective /
past from telics to statives is well-established (summarized in Bardovi-Harlig
2000; see also Salaberry & Shirai 2002). With regard to the third claim of the
aspect hypothesis (in languages that have progressive aspect, progressive
marking begins with activities and later extends to accomplishments and
achievements), Bardovi-Harlig (2000) points out that “in cross-sectional
studies of English, progressive associates quite robustly with activities”
(237).
As an attempt to explain this early association of lexical aspects and
tense and aspect morphology, Shirai and Andersen (1995) proposed the
1
Past / perfectivity in Korean are marked by the morphology -ess-. Henceforth, I
will use ‘past’ instead of ‘past / perfective,’ for simplification.
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 153-177.

154 Hyun-Jin Kim
prototype account. They suggested that the association between lexical aspect
and verb morphology in L1 and L2 acquisition can be attributed to the
acquisitional sequence from prototypical to peripheral members of the
linguistic categories of past tense and progressive aspect. In a prototype
account, learners infer a prototypical past as ‘completed action,’ and a
prototypical progressive as ‘action-in-progress’ 2. This action-in-progress
meaning is obtained “when the progressive marker is attached to activity
verbs and accomplishment verbs” (Shirai 2002: 457).
Research on the acquisition of tense and aspect morphology has been
done predominantly on Indo-European languages (Li & Shirai 2000;
Bardovi-Harlig 2000). However, Japanese is one of the few non-Indo-
European languages investigated as a second language within the framework
of the aspect hypothesis (Shirai 1995, 1999; Shirai & Kurono 1998; Sugaya
& Shirai 2007). Shirai and his colleagues’ work is important in that they have
drawn attention to Japanese by testing the universality of the aspect
hypothesis and also by testing crosslinguistic variation of the progressive /
durative marker -te i- within the prototype hypothesis. Japanese -te i- allows
both progressive and resultative interpretations depending on the lexical
semantics of the verb. Korean aspect marker -ko iss- behaves similarly to -te
i-, but interacts differently with the lexical semantics of the verb to which
they attach. The current L2 Korean research is drawing attention to the
acquisition of crosslinguistic variation of the progressive marker -ko iss- (e.g.
E.H. Lee & H. Kim 2007). These studies of Japanese and Korean will be
reviewed briefly in a later section.
This study is in line with the current research on L2 Japanese and L2
Korean tense and aspect acquisition. Before reporting the present case study
on the acquisition of past and progressive by learners of L2 Korean, the
following sections provide a brief introduction to Korean past and
progressive, and a review of the L2 research on the acquisition of tense and
aspect in Japanese and Korean.
2. The Korean past and progressive
Korean is an agglutinative language, in which grammatical categories such as

tense, aspect, and mood are represented by various suffixes to the verb stem.
Korean has only two tenses, past and nonpast. Aspect in Korean is usually
classified according to two perspectives, imperfective and perfective (Sohn
1995). Korean has two different imperfective markers, progressive -ko iss-
and resultative -a iss- . This section outlines two forms which are specifically
2
Gass and Ard (1984) earlier suggested that on-going action is a prototype of the
progressive.
A case study of tense-aspect marking by L2 learners of Korean 155
relevant to the analysis carried out in the current study, the past tense -ess-
and the progressive aspect marker -ko iss- in Korean.
2.1. The past tense
Korean verbal suffix -ess- [-ət]3 is a tense marker to denote past states or
events, which corresponds to the English past tense morphology -ed. The
core features of the past are [+past] and [+telic] (Shirai & Andersen, 1995).
Korean -ess- appears with all types of verbs, without any restriction in simple
sentences (Sohn 1995), with event verbs (1a), and with adjectival predicates,
as in (1b).
(1) a. Mary-ka ppang-ul muk-ess-ta.
Mary-NOM bread-ACC eat-PAST-DECL
‘Mary ate bread.’
b. Mary-ka kuttay kippu-ess-ta.
Mary-NOM then be glad-PAST-DECL
‘Mary was glad then.’
Korean adjectival predicates play the role of predicates independently,

without a copula. Hence, to denote the past reference of adjectival predicates,
-ess- occurs directly with adjectival predicates as in (1b). This is different
from English adjectival predicates, which have a copula be which carries
tense.
2.2. The progressive
In Korean, -ko iss-4 is a progressive aspect marker that expresses a continuing

process or ongoing action. -ko iss- is comparable to be –ing in English in
terms of the fundamental similarity in core meaning of the ongoingness.
Table 1 provides example sentences with -ko iss- attached to a verb from
each aspectual class.
Table 1. Examples of Korean -ko iss- with four aspectual classes
Aspectual class Meaning Examples
Activity Action in progress Mary-ka noraeha-ko iss-ta.
(ACT) Mary-NOM sing- ASP-Decl
‘Mary is singing.’
3
Korean past –ess- appears in allomorphs: -ess-[-ət] and -ass-[-at]
4
The conjunctive suffix –ko- ‘and’ carries a simultaneity feature, -iss- is the stem
of existential verb, issta.
156 Hyun-Jin Kim
Aspectual class Meaning Examples

Accomplishment Action in progress Mary-ka ppang hana-lul muk-ko iss-ta.
(ACC) Mary-NOM bread one-ACC eat-ASP-
Decl
‘Mary is eating a piece of bread.’
Achievement Process leading up Kong-i tteolechi-ko iss-ta.
(ACH) to an end point ball-NOM fall-ASP-Decl
‘The ball is falling.’
States Anomaly *Mary-ka yeppu-ko iss-ta.
(STA) Mary-NOM be pretty- ASP-Decl
*‘Mary is being pretty.’
-ko iss- naturally occurs with cognitive verbs, such as alta ‘know’, mitta
‘believe’, and kkaytatta ‘recognize’ (Sohn 1995; Lee 2006). Various tests
have shown (e.g. Kim 1993) that cognitive verbs in Korean are not state
verbs, but closer to achievement verbs which involve an instantaneous
change. -ko iss- also occurs with emotive verbs, such as salanghata ‘love’
and miwohata ‘hate.’ Operational tests (e.g. Dowty 1979) show that Korean
emotive verbs can be classified as eventive rather than stative, as in the case
of Japanese (e.g. ‘ai-suru’ love), which is typologically close to Korean (Ahn
1995; Lee 2006) 5.
Of particular interest in this study is the fact that -ko iss- exhibits an
ambiguity between on-going activity and result state meaning with certain
telic transitive verbs, such as verbs with the meaning of wearing, carrying
and body posture (Lee 1991; Kim 1993; Ahn 1995). In other words, the
durative progressive marker -ko iss- can also be used to denote a resultative
meaning, 6 as can be observed in sentence (2).
(2) Mary-ka ppalkan os-ul ip-ko iss-ta.
Mary-NOM red dress-ACC put on (wear)-ASP-Decl
a. ‘Mary is putting on the red dress.’ (progressive meaning)
b. ‘Mary is dressed in red.’ (resultative meaning)
Sentence (2) is ambiguous. With -ko iss- attached to the verb stem –ip-
‘wear’, this sentence can have either progressive or resultative meaning. To
express the meaning, “Mary is putting on the red dress” in Korean, both
“Mary-ka ppalkan os-ul ip-nun (NONPAST)-ta” and “Mary-ka ppalkan os-ul
ip-ko iss-ta” are possible. In contrast, in order to express the meaning “Mary
is dressed in red” in Korean, the second sentence with -ko iss- is acceptable,
5
As the comprehensive discussion of aspectual properties of these verbs in
Korean is outside scope of this paper, I will not pursue it in greater detail (but
see, Lee 1991; Kim 1993; Ahn, 1995).
6
Bybee et al. (1994) define resultative as “an aspect that signals that a state exists
as a result of past action” (54).
but not the first sentence. There is a small set of verbs that behave this way.
They include verbs that are near equivalents of wear (3a) (which I will call
wear verbs), carry / hold (3b) (which I will call carry verbs) and body
posture verbs (3c).
(3) a. ‘wear’ verbs: ipta ‘wear clothes,’ sinta ‘wear shoes or socks,’
ssuta ‘wear glasses, hats’, kkita ‘wear gloves, ring,’
b. ‘carry’ verb: tulta ‘carry / hold,’ anta ‘hold in arms’
c. body posture verb: kamta ‘close eyes,’ ttuta ‘open eyes’
The fact that a single morpheme -ko iss- can express multiple meanings is of
particular interest to researchers working on Korean aspect, especially with
regard to the L2 acquisition of the form-meaning association, just as Japanese
-te i- has received much attention in the acquisitional literature. The question
is how we can account for this fact in Korean. Normally, the progressive
aspectual marker and resulting state aspectual marker are grammaticized in
different morphemes in many languages (Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca 1994).
For example, Korean has two aspectual morphemes; -ko iss- for the
progressive and -a iss- for the resultative marker. However, their boundary is
not clear as illustrated in the example (2) with -ko iss-. K. Lee (1978 cited in
Shirai 1998: 666) suggests that “the resulting states expressed by the
progressive -ko iss- are those initiated and maintained consciously by the
agent.” Shirai (1998) added that if a resulting state is viewed as involving
dynamicity / agency, the progressive -ko iss- can enter the territory of
resulting state (as in the case of verbs in (3)). The differences between
Korean and Japanese aspectual markers reflect the results of the different
patterns and degrees of grammaticization of their imperfective marker (Shirai
1998).
The next section provides a brief review of L2 research addressing this
interesting issue of Japanese and Korean aspectual markers, as well as the
aspect hypothesis.
2.3. Previous research on the acquisition of tense and aspect in L2

Japanese and L2 Korean
Shirai and Kurono (1998) tested the aspect hypothesis with L1 Chinese
learners of L2 Japanese, using an oral production task and an acceptability
judgment task. They found that learners show strong association of past
marking -ta with achievements, and of progressive marker -te i- with
activities. They also suggest that the progressive use of -te i- with activities
appears earlier than its resultative state use with achievements, indicating that
progressive meaning is the prototype of -te i- in L2 Japanese. Sugaya and
Shirai (2007) examined the influence of learners’ L1 on the acquisition of
Japanese -te i-using an acceptability judgment test and an oral description
158 Hyun-Jin Kim
task. The results from the acceptability judgment test support the aspect
hypothesis, in that -te i- was strongly associated with activities for lower
proficiency learners, regardless of L1. However, the results from the oral task
did not support the prediction, in that lower proficiency learners from
German and Slavic L1 background did not show any preference. They claim
that L1 plays a role in the formation of the acquisition pattern predicted by
the aspect hypothesis, but L1 influence is not the only possible answer
available to explain the acquisition of the Japanese aspect.
With the exception of research in Japanese mentioned previously (Shirai
2002; Shirai & Kurono 1998; Sugaya & Shirai 2007), very few studies have
been conducted in non-Indo-European languages within the framework of the
aspect hypothesis, and L2 Korean has received little significant research
attention within the framework of the aspect hypothesis. However, a notable
exception is E.H. Lee and H. Kim’s (2007) study of the acquisition of two
Korean aspect markers (the progressive -ko iss- and the resultative -a iss-) in
L2 Korean by learners with various L1s. They examined how aspectual
morphology expands beyond prototype associations with inherent lexical
aspects. They hypothesized that -a iss- will develop later than -ko iss- for
progressive, but earlier than -ko iss- for resultant state. In the cross-sectional
data from a sentence interpretation task and a guided picture description task,
they found the early emergence of -ko iss- with action in progress meaning,
and they also found that the order of development of -ko iss- action precedes
-a iss- in resultant states. The results supported their hypothesized acquisition
order of two Korean aspect markers, with individual variation.
3. The present study
The study examines the emergence and the spread of the Korean past tense
marker -ess- and the progressive marker -ko iss- in English-speaking L2
Korean learners’ longitudinal production data. Bardovi-Harlig (2000)
suggests that the universality of the aspect hypothesis be tested with a wide
range of the target languages. To that end, this case study addresses the
aspect hypothesis in L2 Korean, which has not previously been investigated
within this framework. In addition, the study investigates how L2 Korean
learners associate the progressive marker -ko iss- with resultative meaning as
well as progressive meaning (cf. E.H. Lee & H. Kim 2007; Shirai & Kurono
1998; Sugaya & Shirai 2007). Given that little attention has been paid to
cross-linguistic variation in the aspect hypothesis, this study should be a
meaningful attempt to understand how tense and aspect morphology expands
to nonprototypical associations over time with relation to lexical aspects.
Specifically, the study addresses the following two research questions:
1. Does the aspect hypothesis correctly predict the development in L2 Korean

past tense (-ess) and progressive marking (-ko iss-)?
2. Is there evidence in the grammar of L2 learners of Korean that -ko iss-
moves from progressive to resultative in the subset of eligible verbs ?
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
The participants in this study are two native speakers of English (Kate and
Beth) who were enrolled in a Korean language program at an American
university 7. They were enrolled in the third semester of Korean (first
semester of second-year Korean) at the beginning of this study and
progressed to the fourth semester. They had had no precollege instruction in
Korean. They are both females in their early twenties. Students completed a
language background questionnaire prior to the beginning of data collection.
In their Korean program curriculum, the past tense is introduced in the first
semester of first-year Korean, and the progressive meaning of -ko iss- is
introduced in the second semester of first-year Korean. The result state
meaning of -ko iss- is introduced later when they learn how to describe
people with wear verbs. By the time of data collection, the past and
progressive forms had been already taught to these learners.
3.1.2. Data collection procedure
The present study was conducted over a period of six months from November
2006 to April 2007. The researcher met individually with each participant to
record samples of oral production. The study consists of six data collection
sessions at three to four-week intervals. The first two data collection sessions
were administered when the participants were in the third semester in Korean
program. Further data were collected when they were in the fourth semester.
Each session was approximately 45 minutes in length. The audio data were
recorded digitally on the computer using the Audacity program while the
participants were performing the tasks, and were then transcribed by the
researcher using Korean orthography.
3.1.3. Tasks
In each session, the participants were engaged in two tasks which elicit
spontaneous oral production: a conversational interview and a picture
description task. The conversational interview targeted past contexts with
7
The number of participants is due to the limited availability of L1 English
students in the second year of the Korean program in this university.
160 Hyun-Jin Kim
various topics. The topics included the participants’ freshman year,

weekends, winter / spring break, sports events and friends. The interviewer
controlled the choice of topics to give some range of comparability of results
across participants. In addition, to make the flow of conversation as natural as
possible, the researcher included other topics about the participants’ present
daily life and future plans.
The picture description task targeted progressive contexts to examine
the distribution of progressive morphology predicted in the aspect hypothesis
and to examine learners’ ability to use -ko iss- to denote the ‘action in
progress’ meaning in activities and resultative meaning in wear / carry verbs.
For each session, the participants were asked to describe both actions and
states of given pictures in as much detail as possible 8. Various pictures in
color, in sequence, were chosen by the researcher from picture storybooks. In
the pictures, people are performing various actions such as eating breakfast,
reading a book, and meeting with friends. In each picture, people are wearing
clothes, gloves, glasses, or carrying things such as a book. The researcher
encouraged learners to produce more oral samples by asking, “I would like to
know more about the lady. Please tell me about her clothes and appearance.”
In the final session, they performed a picture description task in their L1
(English) using selected pictures, for the purpose of assessing their L1
viewpoint aspect in picture description.
3.2. Analysis
The data coding procedures basically follow those of L2 English studies (e.g.
Bardovi-Harlig, 1995, 1998), but were modified to fit Korean linguistic
structures. The data were analyzed for each task.
3.2.1. Conversational interview
Only the verbs in the past time context were coded and token analysis was
conducted. First, each predicate or verb phrase was identified and classified
into one of Vendler’s (1967) four lexical categories. If the same verb
expresses different semantic relationships to its object (Dowty 1979), it
belongs to a different aspectual class. The lexical aspect of each predicate
was determined by means of established operational tests (Dowty 1979;
Shirai & Anderson 1995), and relevant modification was applied to the
8
In order to elicit present and progressive, the researcher showed the pictures to
learners and explained in English at the beginning, “This is happening now and
you are watching this scene, but I cannot see the scene. I would like to know
what is going on now. Please explain to me what you see in the picture and what
is happening now in detail.” The researcher could not see the pictures.
semantics of predicates that the participants produced. 9 Next, all predicates

encoding past-time reference were coded for verbal morphology: past, non-
past (present), and other (i.e. uninterpretable). Finally, the percentage of use
of predicates belonging to different lexical aspectual categories was
calculated and compared between participants. To demonstrate the learners’
development clearly, I conducted ‘within-category analysis’ rather than
‘across-category analysis’ (see Bardovi-Harlig 2000, 2002 for more
discussion) 10.
Some of the production data was excluded from the analysis. First,
when a learner repeated a verb in the same form in the same utterance, it was
counted only once. However, in cases where a verb form was not an exact
repetition, the ratio of forms was calculated. For example, in example (4), the
past and the base form of the same verb were each scored .5, and counted as
one verb (following Bardovi-Harlig 2000: 244).
(4) Ilhaknyun-ttay chaemis-ess-eyo, chaemis-eyo.
freshmen year-in was fun (STA, past), is fun (STA, pres): .5 ratio each
‘I had fun in my freshman year.’
Second, when different verbs appeared in coordinate construction, only

the last verb was counted. The reason being only inflection of the last verb of
a conjunction is obligatorily in Korean. In example (5), only the last verb
manna-ess-eyo (met) was counted as one.
(5) TV po-ko, umsikha-ko, yoriha-ko, chinku manna-ess-eyo.
TV watch-CONJ, make food-CONJ, cook-CONJ friend meet- past-Pol
‘I watched TV, made some food, cook, and met a friend.’
Errors in vowel harmony (e.g. chu-a-yo for chu-e-yo “give”) were

included for data coding if they could be interpreted as past or nonpast.
9
For example, cognitive verbs that are classified as statives in English were
classified as achievement in this study (e.g. know, as discussed in section 2.2).
10
Within-category analysis and across-category analysis differ in reporting rates
of use of morphology in each aspectual category, and in the sensitivity to
number of tokens produced (Bardovi-Harlig 2000). Across-category analysis is
so sensitive to the number of predicate tokens in each category that the
percentages of predicate use in each category can be easily inflated by this
analysis. In contrast, within-category analysis does not address the actual
number of tokens, but rather capture the rate at which a learner can inflect
activities with the morphology such as the simple past.
162 Hyun-Jin Kim
3.2.2. Picture description task
Data coding procedures of the picture description task were basically the
same as a conversational interview. First, each predicate was identified and
classified into one of four lexical categories. Second, all predicates were
coded for verbal morphology: past (-ess / ass-), progressive (-ko iss-), and
nonpast (-e / ayo). Then, the percentage of use for verbs from all lexical
aspect categories marked by the progressive was calculated and compared
between participants. The predicates were also coded for the corresponding
uses as progressive or resultative state. All resultative contexts with -ko iss-
involved wear shoes (dress, glasses, hats), carry, and hold, 11 which were
coded as wear / carry verbs.
3.3. Results
3.3.1. Conversational interview
The results from the six conversational interviews clearly show that the
learners’ use of the past tense marker -ess- was associated with achievements
and accomplishments in the initial phase. Statives tended to be used with the
nonpast in the interlanguage of both learners. The use of -ess- with statives
was low. Adjectival predicates, a subclass of statives, also show the same low
distribution with regard to -ess-. In the later sessions, the spread of past from
events to states was observed in both learners’ production.
Distribution of verbal morphology. The conversational interview yielded an
average of 31 tokens (138 tokens / 6) per session in Kate’s past-time
reference and 29 tokens (172 tokens / 6) in Beth’s. This section reports the
results from each participant separately.
Table 2 presents Kate’s distribution of verbal morphology within the
aspectual categories in past contexts. Examples of each category from Kate’s
data are found in examples (6a)-(6d). The session number is indicated in the
parenthesis.
(6) a. ACH: Sang bat-ass-eyo. “I received an award.”(S6)
b. ACC: Chapchae meok-ess-eyo. “I ate Chapchae (a Korean dish)” (S5)
c. ACT: Nun-i ow-ass-eyo. “It snowed.” (S3)
d. STA: Haengbokha-ess-eyo. “I was happy.” (S4)
11
Stative predicates “is seated, is open, is closed,” are also in the resultative
context, but they are obligatorily marked by -a iss- for resultative meaning.
Since -a iss- is not a focus of the current study, learners’ production of these
three stative-type verbs will not be discussed in detail.
Table 2. Distribution of tense-aspect morphology within aspectual categories

in Kate’s conversational interview
STA ACT ACC ACH
Session Form % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
1 Past 50 (5) 100 (2) 50 (1) 100 (3)
Nonpast 50 (5) 0 50 (1) 0
Total 100 (10) 100 (2) 100 (2) 100 (3)
2 Past 56 (5) 71 (5) 92 (5.5) 100 (4)
Nonpast 44 (4) 29 (2) 8 (0.5) 0
Total 100 (9) 100 (7) 100 (6) 100 (4)
3 Past 67 (8) 100 (5) 92 (12) 96(12.5)
Nonpast 33 (4) 0 8 (1) 4 (0.5)
Total 100 (12) 100 (5) 100 (13) 100 (13)
4 Past 65 (8.5) 83 (5) 100 (1) 100 (5)
Nonpast 35 (4.5) 17 (1) 0 0
Total 100 (13) 100 (6) 100 (1) 100 (5)
5 Past 77 (8.5) 100 (5) 100 (8) 92 (5.5)
Nonpast 23 (2.5) 0 0 8 (0.5)
Total 100 (11) 100 (5) 100 (8) 100 (6)
6 Past 93 (6.5) 100 (7) 100 (13) 100 (4)
Nonpast 7 (0.5) 0 0 0
Total 100 (7) 100 (7) 100 (13) 100 (4)
The results from oral interviews showed patterns that have been well-
supported in studies on the aspect hypothesis. Over the course of the six data
collection periods, Kate showed the greatest use of simple past marking on
achievements, followed by accomplishments. She showed the lowest use of
past with statives as predicted in the aspect hypothesis. As shown in Table 2,
the only competitor to the past form in every aspectual category was the
nonpast. No progressive occurred in this task.
Kate’s developmental pattern over time is illustrated in Figure 1. The
use of the past marker with stative verbs increased noticeably from 50% (5
out of 10 stative tokens in Session 1) to 93% (out of 6.5 tokens in Session 6)
throughout the six sessions. The use of the past with accomplishment verbs
also increased from 50% (out of two tokens in Session 1) to 100% in Session
4, 5 and 6. Achievements show the highest rate of past tense marking and this
pattern persisted over time (88% - 100%). Unstable use of the past with
activity verbs was observed between Session 1 and Session 4. Later on, it
steadily increased and reached 100% out of 7 verb types in the last session.
164 Hyun-Jin Kim
Figure 1. Distribution and spread of simple past in Kate’s conversational interview
In sum, use of the past with achievements and accomplishments and its
spread to activities is observed in Kate’s production over time. The
successful spread of the past to states is also observed. Even though the
number of coded verb tokens in each category was sometimes small (two or
three tokens), the study could trace the overall pattern of her development in
supplying the past marker -ess-. By the end of the study, Kate could move
appropriately from past to present, and from present to past, according to the
conversational contexts.
Beth’s pattern of associating the past with four lexical categories is
similar to Kate’s, but is evidenced to a different degree. From the beginning
of the study, Beth was less advanced than Kate with regard to past tense
marking. Table 3 displays Beth’s distribution of verbal morphology.
Examples of each category are found in examples (7a)-(7d).
(7) a. Achievement: Pul na-ass-eyo. “A fire broke out.” (S4)
b. Accomplishment: Yeonghwa po-ass-eyo. “I watched a movie.” (S4).
c. Activity: Chumchuw-ess-eyo. “I danced.”(S2)
d. Stative: Wonhae-ess-eyo. “I wanted (TV).” (S6).

in Beth’s conversational interview
STA ACT ACC ACH
1 Past 14 (1) 50 (3) 100 (3) 100 (1)
Nonpast 86 (6) 50 (3) 0 0
Total 100 (7) 100 (6) 100 (3) 100 (1)
2 Past 33 (2) 83 (5) 80 (12) 100 (1)
Nonpast 67 (4) 17 (1) 20 (3) 0
Total 100 (6) 100 (6) 100 (15) 100 (1)
3 Past 0 38 (1.5) 100 (8) 71 (5)
Nonpast 100 (9) 63 (2.5) 0 29 (2)
Total 100 (9) 101 (4) 100 (8) 100 (7)
4 Past 13 (1) 100 (5) 97 (14.5) 100 (4)
Nonpast 88 (7) 0 3 (0.5) 0
Total 100 (8) 100 (5) 100 (15) 100 (4)
5 Past 20 (1) 100 (6) 100 (8) 83 (5)
Nonpast 80 (4) 0 0 17 (1)
Total 100 (5) 100 (6) 100 (8) 100 (6)
6 Past 21 (5.5) 83 (10) 95 (10.5) 94 (8.5)
Nonpast 79 (20.5) 17 (2) 5 (0.5) 6 (0.5)
Total 100 (26) 100 (12) 100 (11) 100 (9)
As illustrated in Table 3, Beth showed the highest use of simple past

marking on accomplishments (over 95% except for Session 2) followed by
achievements and activities. She showed the lowest use of past with statives.
This pattern is the same as Kate’s, but Beth’s use of past with statives was
much lower than Kate’s. As presented in Table 3, the only competitor to the
past form in every aspectual category was the nonpast. She did not use any
progressive in this task.
Beth’s developmental pattern is illustrated in Figure 2. The use of past
form with accomplishment verbs stayed at around 100%, except in Session 2
(80%). The use of the past form with stative verbs stayed low overall, but it
steadily increased from 0% to 20% in the last two sessions. In Session 3, the
use of past with achievement verbs dropped to 71% of the sample, but in
subsequent sessions increased to between 83% and 100%. The rate of past
marking with activities shows sharp fluctuations, because of the small sample
size of activities. Eventually, the spread of the past to activity verbs was
observed in later sessions.
166 Hyun-Jin Kim
Figure 2. Distribution and spread of the simple past in Beth’s conversational interview
In sum, the use of past with events and its spread to activities is
observed in Beth’s oral sample over time. In contrast to Kate, who achieved
93% use of past by Session 6 with statives, the spread of past to states is not
clearly demonstrated in Beth’s data.
The acquisition data from both learners revealed a strong association
between past tense and achievements and accomplishments with individual
differences in the strength of the association. The data also show strong
association of statives and adjectival predicates with the nonpast. The spread
of past from events to states in the later sessions was clearly observed in
Kate’s production and to a lesser extent in Beth’s.
3.3.2. Picture description task
In this section, the results from a picture description task by each participant
will be reported separately. At the time of the task, the progressive had
emerged in both participants’ interlanguage, but with different patterns and to
different degrees. The progressive began with activities and accomplishments
and spread to achievements, especially in Kate’s data. Neither learner used
progressive forms with stative verbs, which means that the progressive is not
being overgeneralized, consistent with the aspect hypothesis.
Distribution of verbal morphology within aspectual categories. The
distribution of the tense and aspect morphology within aspectual categories
by Kate is provided in Table 4.

in Kate’s picture description task
STA ACT ACC ACH
1 Progressive 0 0 0 0
Nonpast 100 (1) 80 (4) 0 0
Past 0 20 (1) 0 0
Total 100 (1) 100 (5) 0 0
Nonpast 100 (3) 100 (4) 67 (2) 100 (1)
Past 0 0 33 (1) 0
Total 100 (3) 100 (4) 100 (3) 100 (1)
Nonpast 100 (7) 86 (6) 100 (3) 0
Past 0 14 (1) 0 0
Total 100 (7) 100 (7) 100 (3) 0
4 Progressive 0 33 (2) 100 (3) 0
Nonpast 100 (2) 67 (4) 0 0
Past 0 0 0 0
Total 100 (2) 100 (6) 100 (3) 100 (0)
5 Progressive 0 53 (8) 0 50 (1)
Nonpast 100 (8) 47 (7) 100 (2) 50 (1)
Past 0 0 0 0
Total 100 (8) 100 (15) 100 (2) 100 (2)
6 Progressive 0 77 (8.5) 67 (2) 0
Nonpast 100 (4) 23 (2.5) 0 0
Past 0 0 33 (1) 0
Total 100 (4) 100 (11) 100 (3) 100 (0)
As shown in Table 4, Kate produced no progressives at all until the third

session, even though she would add aspectual marking to describe the
situations in her L1. Given that she did not produce any progressive in the
conversational interviews either (see Table 2), it can be assumed that
progressive had not emerged yet in Kate’s interlanguage during this period.
In Session 3, Kate switched from Korean to English when she was describing
a female character in the picture.
168 Hyun-Jin Kim
(8) Halmoni chinku-ka sesuha-eyo, halmony towu-ayo,

She is helping.
old lady friend-NOM wash face-Pol grandma help-Pol
‘A grandma’s friend washes her face, helps her.’(in Korean) ‘She is
helping’ (in English)
The above example clearly shows that the form-meaning association of

the progressive with action-in-progress had not developed yet. In Session 4,
however, -ko iss- progressive emerged. An illustration of the distribution and
spread of the progressive is provided in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Distribution and spread of progressive in a picture description task: Kate
At the time of its emergence, -ko iss- was associated with activity verbs
and accomplishment verbs. In the following session, it had spread to
achievements. In the final session, she showed 77% use of progressive with
activities and 67% use with accomplishments.
The distribution of the tense and aspect morphology within aspectual
categories by Beth is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Distribution of tense-aspect morphology

within aspectual categories in Beth’s picture description task
STA ACT ACC ACH
Nonpast 100 (6) 50 (1) 0 0
Past 0 50 (1) 0 0
Total 100 (6) 100 (2) 100 (0) 100 (0)
Nonpast 100 (4) 100 (3) 100 (4) 50 (1)
Past 0 0 0 50 (1)
Total 100 (4) 100 (3) 100 (4) 100 (2)
Nonpast 100 (6) 43 (3) 92 (5.5) 50 (1)
Nonpast 0 57 (4) 8 (0.5) 50 (1)
Total 100 (6) 100 (7) 100 (6) 100 (2)
4 Progressive 0 17 (1) 0 0
Nonpast 100 (4) 66 (4) 50 (3) 0
Past 0 17 (1) 50 (3) 100 (1)
Total 100 (4) 100 (6) 100 (6) 100 (1)
Nonpast 100 (2) 36 (4) 67 (2) 50 (0.5)
Past 0 59 (6.5) 33 (1) 50 (0.5)
(a iss-ta) 0 5 (0.5) 0 0
Total 100 (2) 100 (11) 100 (3) 100 (1)
Nonpast 100 (3) 33 (4) 67 (2) 100 (1)
Past 0 58 (7) 33 (1) 0
(a iss-ta) 0 8 (1) 0 0
Total 100 (3) 99 (12) 100 (3) 100 (1)
In Session 1, Beth mostly used an existential verb, issta ‘exist’ to

describe people in the picture. In the later sessions, she used various verb
types to describe the given pictures, so the number of verb types increased. In
Session 4, one type of -ko iss- for progressive meaning emerged, which was
associated with the activity verb jata ‘sleep.’ However, this is the only -ko
iss- Beth produced from Session 1 through Session 6, and no -ko iss- for the
resultative meaning was observed in Beth’s oral sample.
170 Hyun-Jin Kim
I will now examine -ko iss- in progressive and resultative contexts more
closely. To describe the given pictures, ‘wear’ and ‘carry’ are expected to
appear with the progressive morphology. They are in the preferable context
of -ko iss- to have the resultative meaning (e.g. “An old lady is wearing a
white dress.”)
(9) *Halmoni hayan one-piece ip-eyo.
Old lady white dress wear- Pol.
‘An old lady wears a white dress.’
In order to express the meaning “An old lady is wearing a white dress”
in Korean, -ko iss- is needed as in “Halmoni-ka hayan one-piece-lul ip-ko
iss-eyo.” Table 6 illustrates the path of form-meaning association of the
progressive with wear / carry verb tokens over time when learners attempted
to express resultative state meaning in the pictures.
Table 6. Verb-tokens of wear / carry by learners
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Total
Kate Progressive 0 0 0 0 9 7 16
Nonpast 2 6 7 5 6 3 29
Past 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beth Progressive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nonpast 2 4 1 1 9 8 25
Past 0 0 6 2 9 6 23
From Session 1 through Session 4, Kate never showed the use of the
progressive marker with ‘wear / carry’ verbs. It is assumed that she did not
associate -ko iss- with the resultative meaning until Session 5. However, note
that nine verb tokens with -ko iss- for the resultative state meaning emerged
in Session 5. In Session 5, she produced four verb types with -ko iss- for the
progressive meaning (yekiha-ass-eyo ‘talked’→yekiha-ko iss-eyo ‘is talking’,
ja-ko iss-eyo ‘is sleeping’, shoppingha-ko iss-eyo ‘is shopping’, and manna-
ko iss-eyo ‘is meeting’), and five verb types with –ko iss- for the resultative
state meaning (ssu-ko iss-eyo, sin-ko iss-eyo, tul-ko iss-eyo, kutu ssu-ko iss-
eyo, yangbok ip-ko iss-eyo). Interestingly, they were self-repaired from
nonpast to progressive (the target form) in the resultative contexts, as in
example (10).
(10) a. Moja ssu-eyo…uh Moja ssu-ko iss-eyo.
hat wear-nonpast, hat wear-ko iss-Pol.
‘(She) wears a hat, uh, is wearing a hat.’
b. Seongkyung tul-eyo… or tul-ko iss-eyo.

The Bible hold-nonpast, hold-ko iss-Pol.
‘(She) holds the Bible, or is holding the Bible.’
In Session 6, Kate used six verb types with -ko iss- for the progressive
meaning, and five verb types with -ko iss- for the resultative state meaning.
In this session, she directly produced the progressive form for six cases as in
ip-ko iss-ta, and ssu-ko iss-ta, and she repaired only once from nonpast to
progressive (kky-eyo → kky-ko-is-eyo).
In the last two sessions, Kate attempted to use appropriate verbs which
are compatible with the direct objects in order to express the meaning of
‘wear.’ In Session 5 and 6, she used, ipta ‘wear (clothes),’ sinta ‘wear (shoes
or socks),’ and ssuta ‘wear (hats).’ Example (11) shows a lexical search for
the target verb (sinta) and repair to the target form (sinkoissta) at the same
time. This utterance is interesting to observe, considering that Korean has
different verbs for ‘wearing shoes,’ ‘wearing clothes,’ and ‘wearing glasses.’
(11) Miss Fanny kutu ip-eyo, sin-eyo, sin-ko iss-eyo.
Miss Fanny shoes wear-nonpast, wear-nonpast, wear-ko iss-Pol
‘Miss Fanny wears (for clothes), wears (for shoes), is wearing shoes.’
Overall, the results from Kate’s picture description task showed her
development of the association of -ko iss- with progressive and resultative
meaning over time. In terms of the emergence of -ko iss-, progressive
meaning emerged earlier than resultative meaning.
Beth’s developmental pattern is significantly different from Kate’s
regarding the progressive marking. As illustrated in Table 6, Beth never
showed the use of the progressive marker with ‘wear / carry’ verbs across all
six sessions. She had not associated -ko iss- with the resultative meaning. The
results from Beth’s picture description task may suggest that the progressive
meaning of -ko iss- emerged earlier (one token of ACT at Session 4, see
Table 5) than its resultative meaning which had not appeared yet. However,
given that the progressive meaning of -ko iss- appeared only once, it is
premature to make any strong claim about Beth’s development of the form-
meaning association of -ko iss- at this point.
Alternatives to progressive and resultative. To describe their interlanguage in
relation to the aspect marking in detail, I examined the alternatives to the
progressive used by Kate and Beth. The use of -ko iss- and other alternative
forms to denote progressive and resultative state meaning by learners is
provided in Table 7.
172 Hyun-Jin Kim
Table 7. Distribution of -ko iss- and its alternatives to -ko iss-

for progressive and resultative contexts (%)
Progressive Resultative state

- ko iss - Alternatives -ko iss- Alternatives
Raw score Raw score
Non past Past Non past Past
(%) (%)
Kate
1 0 (0) 4 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) 0 (0)
2 0 (0) 4 (80) 1 (20) 0 (0) 6 (100) 0 (0)
3 0 (0) 10(91) 1 (9) 0 (0) 7 (100) 0 (0)
4 8 (73) 3 (27) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (100) 0 (0)
5 7 (50) 6 (43) 1 (7) 9 (53) 6 (47) 0 (0)
6 8 (73) 1 (9) 2 (18) 7 (64) 3 (36) 0 (0)
Beth
1 0 (0) 3 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (100) 0 (0)
2 0 (0) 6 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (100) 0 (0)
3 0 (0) 9 (90) 1(10) 0 (0) 1 (14) 6 (86)
4 1 (17) 5 (83) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33) 2 (67)
5 0 (0) 11(100) 0 (0) 0 (5) 9 (47) 9 (47)
6 0 (0) 8 (89) 1(11) 0 (0) 8 (57) 6 (43)
As shown in Table 7, Kate used the nonpast predominantly as an alternative

to -ko iss- progressive, with only five tokens of past. The only competitor to -
ko iss- for the resultative meaning was the nonpast form. Beth also used the
nonpast as an alternative to -ko iss- for progressive contexts. In the resultative
state contexts, however, the past form -ess- was used a little more (22 tokens)
than the nonpast (20 tokens) as an alternative.
In summary, Kate seemed to be more advanced than Beth in relation to
aspect marking. In her interlanguage, -ko iss- progressive meaning emerged
first, and then spread to resultative state. However, Beth’s development of
form-meaning association of -ko iss- was not observed clearly. Beth was
considerably less advanced than Kate and she also seemed to be making
different associations. With regard to alternatives to -ko iss-, both learners
used the nonpast in the progressive contexts. For resultative state meaning,
Kate’s predominant alternative was also the nonpast form, whereas Beth’s
alternative was the past form (-ess-).
4. Discussion
4.1. Does the aspect hypothesis correctly predict development in L2
Korean past and progressive marking?
This study examined the influence of lexical aspect in L2 Korean, focusing

on the development of the past tense -ess- and the progressive -ko iss- in L1
English learners of Korean. The data in this longitudinal study showed that
both learners exhibited a strong association between past tense and
achievements / accomplishments in the earliest stage, and gradually extended
the marking to activities and statives. The data show low supply of -ess- to
statives, which is consistent with the prediction of the aspect hypothesis. The
results show the progressive was first used with activities and
accomplishments and spread to achievements, which is also consistent with
the aspect hypothesis. Given that the picture description task was in the
present context, the results from the description task suggest that the
acquisition of progressive in the present still follows the prediction of the
aspect hypothesis. Therefore, this study mainly supports the applicability of
the aspect hypothesis to L2 Korean, a language which has not been
longitudinally investigated within this framework. This longitudinal case
study directly tested the hypothesized developmental sequence, lending
support to the hypothesis that the influence of inherent lexical aspect on the
acquisition of tense and aspect morphology is universal in learning
languages.
4.2. Is there evidence in the grammar of L2 learners of Korean that -ko

iss- moves from progressive to resultative in the subset of eligible verbs?
The study also suggests that -ko iss- was used for action-in-progress meaning
first with activities before it was used for resultant state meaning with Korean
wear / carry verbs. Even though it appeared in only one learner’s production,
the results from the picture description task showed the developmental
pattern in L2 Korean learners’ association of -ko iss- with wear / carry; the
progressive meaning of -ko iss- emerged earlier than its resultative meaning.
This result is mainly consistent with previous studies which address the
progressive and resultative meaning of this aspect marker (E.H. Lee & H.
Kim, 2007 for L2 Korean; Shirai and colleagues’ work for L2 Japanese).
As for the progressive marking, the results are also consistent with the
prediction of prototype account. Kate’s results can be interpreted as the
spread of a prototypical association: from action in progress to resultative
state. It is the extension from prototypical progressive with the feature of
[−telic] and [+dynamic] (Shirai & Andersen, 1995; Shirai, 2002) to
resultative with [+durative] and [−dynamic] which is nonprototypical. In
Korean, resultative -ko iss- is less prototypical than progressive -ko iss-. It
174 Hyun-Jin Kim
seems that the feature mismatch between the progressive form and the
resulting state meaning ([+dynamic] versus [−dynamic]) creates a difficulty
in its form-meaning association.
4.3. Learnability problem and frequency of input
Given that Korean -ko iss- with resultative meaning is not as productive as
Japanese -te i-, a learnability question might need to be raised. How can
learners acquire knowledge about the interaction between the semantics of
the morphological forms and restricted sets of words ? From the input they
receive, it is highly likely that learners perceive the progressive -ko iss- with
activities or accomplishments more frequently than the resultative -ko iss-
with wear / carry verbs. As for the classroom instruction which learners in
this study are mainly exposed to, -ko iss- with the progressive meaning is
taught first and given serious attention within the grammar syllabus, whereas
-ko iss- with the resulative meaning is introduced as lexical expression to
describe people using wear verbs. Since the distinction between the result
state meaning and the progressive meaning of -ko iss- is not explained
explicitly in the instruction, the multifunctionality of -ko iss- might pose a
difficulty for the learners in acquiring both meanings equally, by moving
from the initial one-to-one association of -ko iss- to activities. Yet, it is also
possible for learners to receive naturally occurring input from their instructor,
from their peers, or from the media. This issue could be investigated by
further examining corpus data in the future research. Multiple factors seem to
be involved when learners acquire the subtle interplay between the aspect
marker and the semantics of verbs. Further research employing different
methodologies is needed to investigate this complexity.
4.4. Minimal L1 Influence
Whether and to what extent a learner’s L1 influences the acquisition of tense-

aspect markers is as yet unresolved. Even though the present study was not
designed to test the effects of L1, the results from the oral picture description
task suggest that L1 influence is minimal in the acquisition of the association
of -ko iss- with progressive meaning. According to Sugaya and Shirai (2007:
6), “NSs of English automatically add aspectual marking to refer to action in
progress.” This prediction might be the same with native speakers of Korean.
Shirai (2002) and Shirai and Kurono (1998) further suggest that L1 transfer
can explain the form-meaning association in the initial stage of acquisition in
relation to the aspect hypothesis.
However, there is counterevidence, in this study, for L1 transfer in
relation to aspect marking. The participants of this study were two native
speakers of English, a language which has the progressive, and yet they did
not use the progressive as they would in their L1. In Session 3, Kate switched
from Korean to English when she was describing a female character in the
picture, showing that she would add progressive in her L1 production to
describe the picture, but she didn’t do so in her L2.
(12) Halmoni chinku-ka sesuha-eyo, halmony towu-ayo.
She is helping.
Old lady friend-NOM wash face-Pol, old lady help-Pol
‘Her friend washes her face, helps her.’ (in Korean) “She is helping” (in
English)
This example suggests that the form-meaning association of the

progressive had not been directly transferred from her L1, even at the initial
stage of L2 acquisition.
Furthermore, in the later stage of acquisition, Kate was more likely to
utilize the progressive meaning of -ko iss- with other verbs than the
resultative state meaning with wear / carry verbs. This result cannot be
explained by L1 transfer because the learner’s L1 usually requires the use of
the progressive marker with wear / carry verbs. Therefore, this study
suggests that an explanation based only on L1 transfer would limit our scope
in accounting for second language acquisition of tense and aspect.
5. Conclusion
This study suggests that the results support the applicability of the aspect
hypothesis to L2 Korean. Even though it followed only two learners’
development, this case study provides some evidence that the aspect
hypothesis correctly predicts the development of L2 Korean tense and aspect.
In addition, data collection methods were less guided than other judgment
tasks, emphasizing the importance of natural conversation data in testing the
aspect hypothesis. The longitudinal design allowed to keep track of the
learners’ emergence and spread of tense and aspect markers over time in a
qualitative way. Yet, it is possible that a cross-sectional study with larger
learner samples may yield a different perspective on the acquisition of -ko
iss- with a progressive meaning and a resultative meaning. For future
investigation in this regard, a finely tuned elicitation task design will be
necessary.
176 Hyun-Jin Kim
References
Ahn, Y. (1995). The aspectual and temporal system of Korean: From the
perspective of the two-component theory of aspect. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Anderson, R.; Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse Motivation for some cognitive
acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 133-
156.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring
factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and Aspect in Second Language.
Acquisition: Form, Meaning and Use. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). Analyzing aspect. In M. R. Salaberry; Y. Shirai,
(eds), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 129–154.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.; Reynolds, D.W. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the
acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly 29: 107-131.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R.; Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar:
Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Gass, S. M.; Ard, J. (1984). Second language acquisition and the ontology of
language universals. In W.E. Rutherford, (ed.), Language universals
and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 33-68.
Kim, Y. (1993). The resultative progressive in Korean. Papers of the 29th
Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society: 251-265.
Lee, E. H. (2006). Stative progressives in Korean and English. Journal of
Pragmatics 38: 695-717.
Lee, E. H.; Kim, H. (2007). On cross-linguistic variations in imperfective
Aspect: The Case of L2 Korean. Language Learning 57: 651-685.
Lee, H. S. (1991). Tense, aspect and modality: A discourse-pragmatic
analysis of verbal suffixes in Korean from a typological perspective.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Lee, K. (1993). A Korean Grammar on Semantic-pragmatic Principles.
Seoul, Korea: Hankwuk Mwunhwasa.
Li, P.; Shirai, Y. (2000). The Acquisition of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect.
Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
Salaberry, R.; Shirai, Y. (2002). The L2 Acquisition of Tense-Aspect
Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Shirai, Y. (1998). Where the progressive and the resultative meet:

Imperfective aspect in Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and English. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 12: 315-330.
Shirai, Y. (2002). The prototype hypothesis of tense-aspect acquisition in
second language. In M. R. Salaberry; Y. Shirai, (eds), The L2
acquisition of tense–aspect morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 455-
478.
Shirai, Y.; Andersen, R. W. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect
morphology: A prototype account. Language 71: 743-762.
Shirai, Y.; Kurono, A. (1998). The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in
Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48: 245-279.
Sohn, H. M. (1994). Korean. London: Routledge.
Sohn, S. O. (1995). Tense and Aspect in Korean. Honolulu, Hawaii: Center
for Korean Studies, University of Hawaii Press.
Sugaya, N.; Shirai, Y. (2007). The acquisition of progressive and resultative
meanings of the imperfective aspect marker by L2 learners of Japanese.
The acquisition of French verbal tenses by Russian
adult learners: stem alternation and frequency effect
Evgeniya SERGEEVA
Jean-Pierre CHEVROT
Laboratoire LIDILEM – Université Stendhal Grenoble 3
1. Introduction
The development of verbal morphology in L2 has become one of the main

issues of research in the field of second language acquisition. It is possible to
distinguish between two main approaches to the acquisition of verbal
morphology: one of these is value-oriented and the other is form-oriented. In
the first of these approaches, the correct use of markers is considered to be an
indication of verbal category acquisition. The problem with French oral
conjugation is that in the majority of forms, category changes are expressed
by a stem change with a zero inflection.
Within the form-oriented approach, the main issue to be raised is verbal
agreement in the present tense. It has been shown that L2 learners acquire
marking by a non-zero inflection early, while categorical differences
expressed by a stem change – with the exception of the copula - take longer
to be acquired (Agren 2005; Bartning 2004; Granget 2005; Hedbor 2005;
Schlyter 2005; Nouveau 2007). However, in French, stem allomorphy is not
limited to present tense markings. Therefore, the variation of verbal stems
may cause difficulties in the correct production of personal, temporal and
modal forms even when the inflection is correct. Thus, Debrenne (2006)
observed errors in stem choice in a wider range of verbal forms produced by
Russian learners of French L2: présent singulier, futur simple, participe
passé and subjonctif présent.
Moreover, the frequency effect has been shown to be predictive of the
production and the acquisition of verbal morphology in L1 and L2 (see Ellis
2002 for a review).
Yet, to our knowledge, despite the advances in these two issues, no
research has so far attempted to observe the L2 acquisition of a wide range of
French verbal stems as a function of the frequency of use of verbal forms and
stems in the learners’ input.
The aim of the present paper is to report on the results of an elicitation
task prompting the production of French verbal forms by Russian speaking
learners. We will present a method of frequency count of the French verb
forms based on an analysis of the classroom textbooks which provide an
important part of the learners’ French input. This frequency count will be
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 179-200.

180 Evgueniya Sergeeva & Jean-Pierre Chevrot
used to observe the frequency effect on accurate production and error

patterns.
2. French verb conjugational system
We will present a description of the French conjugational system which

forms the linguistic basis for our research. Here we adopted the model of
French conjugation proposed by Boyé (2000). It is characterized by an
orientation towards oral speech and a description of dependencies between
verbal stems. One major assumption of this analysis is that stems are
maximized in order to access the identity of oral inflections for all verbs. This
approach attributes greater importance to stem allomorphy but avoids using
the concept of three basic morphological classes, called conjugations.
According to Boyé (2000), the verbal paradigm consists of 12 groups of
forms (see Table 1). For each verb, the forms of a group always use the same
stem. For example, in the case of the forms of the group “Imparfait, présent
1&2pl.”, devoir [to have to] always uses the same stem: il devait, nous
devons. All the forms of the group “subjonctif présent sing., 3pl.” also use the
same stem: qu’il doive, qu’ils doivent.
One and the same verb stem may be used in the construction of the
forms of several groups. For example, savoir (to know} uses the same stem
/sav/ for all the forms of the groups “Imparfait, présent 1&2pl.”: nous
savons, ils savaient and for the group “Présent 3pl.”: ils savent. The
assignment of these stems to two different groups of forms is justified by the
fact that there is at least one verb that uses two different stems for these
groups (Bonami & Boyé 2002).
Depending on the number of stems and their distribution across the
paradigm, Bonami and Boyé (2003) identified 10 ways of filling the stem
slots for French verbs – in other words, 10 stem alternation models. Below,
we illustrate, by way of example, the stem alternation models of two verbs:
devoir [to have to] and savoir [to know] (Table 1):
However, in defining these models, the authors left out 4 groups of
forms: future-conditionnel, participe passé, infinitif and passé simple. These
groups share the characteristic that their stems cannot be reduced to identity
or suppletion relations with the stems of other groups. Rather, their stems can
be obtained through a phonological function of stem construction.
The acquisition of French verbal tenses by Russian adult learners 181
Table 1. Examples of stem alternation models

devoir savoir
Group of forms
stem alternation stem alternation
imparfait, présent 1&2pl. /dəv/ A /sav/ A
présent 3 pl. /dwav/ B /sav/ A
présent sg. /dwa/ C /sε/ B
subjonctif présent 1&2pl. /dəv/ A /saš/ C
subjonctif présent sing., 3pl. /dwav/ B /saš/ C
impératif sing. /dwa/ C /saš/ C
impératif pl. /dəv/ A /saš/ C
participe présent /dəv/ A /saš/ C
Within our research perspective, we thought that it would be restrictive

to exclude the forms of the futur-conditionnel, the participe passé, the
infinitif and the passé simple from the analysis. With the exception of the
latter, these forms are frequent. Moreover, we have no knowledge about how
well Russian learners are able to apply the rules of stem construction. We
therefore extended the analysis undertaken by Bonami and Boyé (2003). We
analyzed the stems of the 4 groups in question as stem allomorphs and
obtained 40 models of stem alternation. A systematic examination of the
frequencies listed in the database Lexique 3 (New 2001) leads to the
conclusion that these models differ both in terms of the number of stems used
and the cumulative frequency of the models and the verbs that represent these
models.
Using this extension of the linguistic model proposed by Boyé (2000)
we analyzed the production of conjugated forms of the French verb in
Russian adult learners by means of an elicitation task.
3. Frequency and stem alternation in L2
In psycholinguistics, the issue of the frequency effect on the production of

verbal forms has often been raised in the context of dual-route models
(Pinker & Prince 1988, 1991; Pinker 1991, 1999; Marcus et al. 1992). These
models dissociate the mechanisms underlying regularity and irregularity.
They hold that regular and irregular forms differ in the role played by token
frequency. The frequency effect should affect only irregular but not regular
forms. However, there is much evidence demonstrating that this dissociation
does not apply to languages with complex verbal morphology (Meunier &
Marslen-Wilson 2000; Matcovich 1998; Ragnasdottir, Simonsen & Plunkett
1997, 1999; Simonsen & Bjerkan 1998). In these studies, frequency effects
have been observed for both regular and irregular forms. Another problem
with the dual-route models is that they do not allow for competition between
inflected verb forms and their stems. Stemberger (2004) and Tabak (2005)
have obtained evidence of competition between the past and present tense
forms of English verbs.
The usage-based theories (Langacker 1987; Bybee 2001) seem to
provide a better account of the acquisition of stem allomorphy. These
theories postulate that such acquisition is based on exemplars which are
memorized and linked to one another. This memorization leads to the
emergence of schemata with variable levels of abstraction (Ellis 2002).
Moreover, the usage-based theories are particularly appropriate for
addressing our research issues given that, in contrast to the dual-route
models, they predict relations between stem allomorphs. According to Bybee
(1985, 1991), some inflectional forms can be described as "the stem of one
form + a marker." Bybee points out that this kind of relation is also possible
for stem alternations. Bybee claims that children and L2 learners start
acquiring conjugations by using one verb form to replace all the others. This
would usually be the base form of the paradigm. All the other forms could
then be derived from the base form which is frequent and semantically non-
marked. Learners then subsequently acquire the functions of the other forms
and use the base form for building needed forms by adding suitable markers.
In most cases, the base form is the singular present indicative.
4. Verbal elicitation task

4.1. Methods and predictions
The aim of the experiment was to observe the production of conjugated forms
of French verbs, paying particular attention to the selection of verbal stems.
Our objective was to define the role of different factors, and in particular the
role of frequency and paradigm structure, in the observed productions and
errors.
4.1.1. Material and task
To this end, we developed a verbal elicitation task which included verbs with
different models of stem alternation. This classification of verbs in terms of
models of stem alternations and frequencies allowed us to choose three verbs
with high cumulative frequencies (faire /to make/, prendre /to take/, devoir
/to have to/) and three with low cumulative frequencies (boire /to drink/,
craindre /to fear/, traduire /to translate/) (Table 2).
The temporal and modal forms to be elicited were selected on the basis
of the grammatical knowledge of the Russian learners who participated in the
task. An analysis of textbooks used during their French L2 classes allowed us
to identify the tenses and moods that they had learned and those that they had
not. The elicited forms were: the présent 3sg., 1pl., 3pl., the subjonctif
présent 3sg., the futur simple 3sg., the participe passé and the infinitif. These
tense-person forms were chosen due to the fact that they represent the range
of variants of verbal stems.
Table 2. Elicited verbs and their stem alternations
Cumulative frequency
Group of forms
More frequent verbs Less frequent verbs
faire prendre devoir boire craindre traduire
imparfait, présent
A/B A A A A A
1&2pl.
présent 3 pl. C B B B A A
présent sing. D C C C B B
subjonctif présent
E A A A A A
1&2pl.
subjonctif présent
E B B B A A
sing., 3pl.
impératif sing. D C C C B B
impératif pl. A A A A A A
participe présent A A A A A A
futur-conditionnel F D A C C B
passé simple G E D D D C
infinitif D D E C C B
participe passé D E D D B B
4.1.2. Participants
This elicitation task was proposed to a group of 30 learners of French who

had achieved two different levels of proficiency. The subjects’ proficiency
was ascertained by means of a survey investigating their French-language
input. This survey consists of 17 questions written in Russian and is an
adaptation of the work of Payre-Ficout (2007) designed for French learners
of English. The questions evoke the presence of foreign languages in the
subjects’ language environment. After analyzing the responses, we selected
30 subjects spread over two different levels of proficiency: 15 low-
proficiency learners in their second year with “journalism” and “history”
majors (LP group) versus 15 high-proficiency learners in their fourth year as
“linguistics” majors (HP group).
4.1.3. Procedure
All the subjects completed the task individually. Each target form was
elicited twice in two different conditions. In the implicit condition the
participants had to complete an utterance prompting the target form by an
adaptation of the Berko-test (Berko 1958). For example, when the target form
was the futur simple 3sg., the experimenter says “aujourd’hui Marc boit du
jus et demain encore il…” [today Marc drinks some juice and tomorrow
again he …]. The participant was expected to produce “il boira” [he will
drink].
In the explicit condition, the infinitive form of the verb was given to the
participants as well as the grammatical term identifying the target form. For
example, “boire, 3ème personne du futur” [to drink, futur simple 3sg.]. It
should be noticed that in French the infinitive form is the only way to refer to
a verb out of the context of an utterance 1.
The verbs and tense-person forms were presented in random order. The
instruction was presented orally and the responses were recorded.
4.1.4. Predictions
The elicitation task was designed to verify the following predictions:

• The acquisition of inflections is easier for Russian learners of French
than the acquisition of stems.
• One of the major factors affecting stem choice is token frequency and the
frequency of the other competing stems of the same verb.
o The production of verbal forms is influenced by their token
frequency: the more frequent a form is the more accurately it is
produced.
o Advanced learners with greater exposure to the French language
should be more sensitive to the effect of frequency. We
expected to observe a stronger frequency effect in the
productions of the HP group learners.
o More frequent forms and stems should substitute for less
frequent ones in the case of errors resulting from constructs
involving an existent stem or form.
• In Bybee’s definition, French verbs have several base forms. This could
also be a factor affecting stem choice.
o The production of these forms would not be sensitive to the
frequency effect. These forms would be expected to replace
others. We would also expect them to be used to build forms
with non-zero inflections. For learners of French L2, these
would be présent singulier and infinitif (cf. Thomas 2005).
1
Comparing these two conditions we aimed to bring out the part of the
metalinguistic reasoning which was expected to be more prominent in the
explicit condition. Given that no significant difference distinguishes the
performance rates in these two conditions, the distinction between them will not
be taken into consideration in the following results.
4.2. Frequency counts for verb forms: the case of French L2
To our knowledge, few studies have attempted to establish the link between
frequencies in the real input of L2 learners and the output produced by these
same learners. However, as Chernigovskaya and Gor (2003) noted, instructed
L2 learners have limited access to verbal frequencies when compared to
children learning their L1. These authors suggested performing a frequency
count based on the classroom textbooks used by the American students of
Russian who participated in their experiments. In the same way as for the
studies of the acquisition of French L2, Thomas (2005) produced a frequency
count based on the teacher’s utterances in a corpus of guided interviews.
Gor and Chernogivskaya (2003) analyzed the productions of beginner
learners of Russian. In contrast, the learners in our experimental groups had
received at least 2 years of French tuition. Moreover, the input survey
showed that they had sources of input other than their French lessons.
Therefore, a frequency count derived from a corpus based on the French
classroom textbooks reflects only part of the input. We will, however, use the
verb frequencies in this corpus and compare them to those listed in the
Lexique 3 database (New 2001).
In our study, all the students were learning French with the Nouveau
sans frontières package (NSF). The learners in the LP group had completed
two levels of the package, whereas the learners in the HP group had
completed four levels. The textbooks and workbooks were scanned in full,
after which we ran optical text recognition software in order to obtain a
digital corpus. We analyzed each page in full with the exception of page
numbers and titles. The frequency count was applied to the forms written in
the textbooks and workbooks. The forms that had to be produced in the
exercises were deliberately omitted. A Pearson correlation test was used to
calculate the correlations between the frequencies listed in Lexique 3 and the
frequencies obtained from our corpus. The indices show a high level of
correlation (Table 3).
Table 3. Correlation of frequencies obtained from the analysis
of the NSF corpus and the frequencies listed in Lexicon 3 (New, 2001)
Correlation coefficient
Unit of frequency count
NSF – Lexique 3
Target inflected form 0.892 (p<0.001)
Target form homophones 0.990 (p<0.001)
Target stem 0.989 (p<0.001)
This result means that the overall frequency of verbal forms is very well
represented by their textbook occurrences.
4.3. Results
The analysis of the results follows the same order as the predictions we made
concerning the frequency and base forms effect in the production of the
verbal forms of French L2.
Table 4 shows the mean rates of the different stem/inflection
combinations as a function of their accuracy.
Table 4. Overall rates of different stem/inflection combinations
Stem-inflection combination Rate Example
Correct inflected form 57.5% /il bwara/
Incorrect stem + correct inflection 28.8% /il byvra/
Correct stem + incorrect inflection 3.8% /il bwarE/
All incorrect 9.9% /il byvrE/
Total 100%
It appears that most errors refer to the choice of stem, while the
inflection is selected correctly. This result is consistent with previous
findings that, for learners of French L2, the tense marking expressed by a
stem choice is more difficult to acquire than the marking expressed by a non-
zero inflection (Ågren 2005; Bartning 2004; Granget 2005; Hedbor 2005;
Schlyter 2005).
Some of these authors formed the hypothesis that the acquisition of
stem alternation in French L2 could be biased by the frequency effect
(Schlyter & Bartning 2005, Schlyter 2005). Only few studies relate real input
frequencies to the productions of the French L2 learners (e.g. Thomas 2005).
To our knowledge no study, however, has tried to manipulate the frequency
in a task prompting the production of verbal forms by learners of French.
4.3.1. Token frequency effect on accurate production
To determine whether there was an overall frequency effect, we performed

two t-tests in order to compare the mean rates of correct forms and stems 2 on
high and low cumulative frequency verbs. The means and standard deviations
are presented in Table 5.
2
We chose not to exclude the non-responses from the total number of forms
elicited in the task, since they represented only 0.6% of the total number of the
forms elicited in the task. The mean accuracy rates were calculated using the
following formula:
Number of correct forms / stems
Total number of forms in the task – Number of non-responses
Table 5. Accurate production of inflected forms and stems of high and low-frequency
verbs (mean rate and standard deviation)
Rates of correctly produced forms Rates of correct stem choice
High- Low- High- Low-
t-test t-test
frequency frequency frequency frequency
significance significance
verbs verbs verbs verbs
57.88 45.08 t=2.2609 88.22 64.22 t=4.0267
(27.39) (25.39) p=0.0275 (21.19) (15.28) p<0.001
The table shows that the mean rates of correct production were higher in
high-frequency verbs. These results are significant both for the production of
complete verbal forms and for stem selection. The influence of frequency on
the production of verbal morphology has been largely documented in second
language research (e.g. Ellis & Schmidt 1997; Brovetto & Ullman 2001;
Birdsong & Flege 2001; Gor & Chernogovskaya 2003; Kirkici 2005). Our
results show that this effect is also present in Russian speaking learners of
French.
4.3.2. Volume of input and token frequency effect on accurate

production
If we observe the overall frequency effect in each level of proficiency (HP

group versus LP group), the frequency effect persists only in the group of
high-proficiency learners (Table 6). Again, these results are significant both
for the production of complete verbal forms and for stem selection.
Table 6. Production of correct forms and stems of high and low cumulative frequency
verbs in each group of learners (mean rate and standard deviation)
Correct form rates Correct stem rates
Proficiency
High- Low- High- Low-

t-test t-test
significance significance
verbs verbs verbs verbs
42.26 41.85 t = 0.982, 50.15 47.59 t = 0.845,

LP
(16.04) (12.68) p = 0.33 (15.69) (10.42) p = 0.41

77.26 63.90 t = 4.056, 82.22 67.37 t = 2.764,
HP
(13.37) (16.26) p < 0.001 (11.53) (12.84) p = 0.009
This tendency is confirmed by the analysis of bivariate Pearson

correlations between the accuracy rates for forms and stems and their
frequencies in the two NSF corpora based on French textbooks used by each
group of learners (Table 7).
Table 7. Correlation between accurate production rates and frequencies in NSF

corpora (* - the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level)
Correct form rates Correct stem rates

Proficiency
Target form Target stem Target form Target stem

0.465* 0.448* 0.237* 0.344*

LP
(p < 0.001) (p<0.001) (p=0.045) (p=0.003)

0.619* 0.593* 0.048 0.041
HP
(p<0.001) (p<0.001) (p=0.690) (p=0.730)
For the learners in the LP group, the correlations between the correct
form rates and both the surface frequencies and stem frequencies were
significant. We also found significant correlations between the correct stem
choice and the frequencies of the forms that were built with these stems and
the frequencies of the stems themselves.
In the HP group, we observed strong and positive correlations between
the accuracy rates of the forms and their surface frequencies, as well as
between the accuracy of forms and the frequencies of their stems.
Nevertheless, there was no significant correlation between the rates of correct
stem selection and the frequencies of the form or the frequency of the stem
itself.
In order to see whether there was a change in the frequency effect, the
correlations that were significant in both groups of learners were compared. It
appears that the correlations in the HP group were stronger for the link
between the effect of the frequency of the target forms (p = 0.033) and stems
(p = 0.047) and the accuracy rates of the inflected forms. Overall, frequent
forms and stems are likely to be produced correctly and this frequency effect
increases with the learners’ proficiency.
We observed that the more advanced learners (HP group) produced the
frequent verbs more accurately than verbs with low cumulative frequencies.
Moreover, the correlations show that link between the frequency and the
accuracy is stronger in the HP group. These results are in line with the idea of
Ellis (2002) who underlines that learners need have processed sufficient
exemplars for their experience to be representative of the content and the
frequencies of the target language.
4.3.3. Token frequency effect and error patterns
To determine whether token frequency is able to account for the stem

substitutions, we analyzed the errors where an existent stem was used. These
errors represented 68.02% (619/910) of the total number of errors. It should
be noted that the observed forms can be either existent (il /dwav/ replaced by
il /dwa/) or non-existent (il /dwav/ replaced by il /dəvwa/). These errors were
distributed as follows as a function of their structure and lexical status: 262
errors (42.3%) had a complex structure (stem + non-zero inflection), of
which 98 errors (37.4%) consisted of non-existent forms. The remaining 357
errors (57.8%) had a simple structure (stem + zero inflection). In this case,
the rate of non-existent forms was much lower (4.7%).
Table 8 presents the different error patterns as a function of the structure
of the target and the structure of the substitute forms: simple structure forms
(SF) versus complex structure forms (CF).
Table 8. Errors built with existent stems and inflections
Error type Number % Example
SF for SF 290 46.84 prã for prEn
SF for CF 67 10.82 dwa for dəvõ
CF for CF 162 26.17 fErE for fəra
CF for SF 100 16.16 dəve for dy
Total 619 100%
The mean frequencies and standard deviations of the target and
substitute forms and stems are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Frequencies 3 of target and substitute forms and stems
for the four error patterns (means and standard deviations)
target substitute target substitute
Error type
form form stem stem
8.71 38.10 16.06 81.09
SF for SF
(18.30) (58.25) (45.75) (142.87)
8.17 53.04 35.61 133.05
SF for CF
(30.84) (71.76) (56.48) (199.38)
6.25 4.32 30.98 83.61
CF for CF
(9.26) (6.22) (19.38) (157.87)
11.91 14.41 30.53 51.19
CF for SF
(20.71) (29.40) (89.22) (112.38)
The frequencies of the target and substitute forms and stems were
compared using Mann-Whitney U-tests. It appears that the substitute simple
forms are more frequent than the simple forms that they replaced (SF for SF
3
All the frequencies are given per million words.
pattern). For this error type, the difference was significant for the comparison
of both forms (t=8.376, p<0.001) and stem frequencies (t=7.317, p<0.001).
When a simple form replaces a complex form (SF for CF pattern), the
substitute is more frequent in terms of both form frequency (t=4.668,
p<0.001) and stem frequency (t=3.820, p=0.031). In the case of the CF for
CF pattern, we found no significant difference between the frequencies of the
target and substitute forms with complex structures (t=1.663, p=0.098).
However, we found that the substitute stem of a complex form is more
frequent than the target stem of other complex forms (t=4.014, p<0.001). In
cases where a complex form replaced a simple form (CF for SF pattern), the
difference between the form frequencies was not significant (t=0.663,
p=0.508) and neither was that between the stem frequencies (t=1.432,
p=0.154).
Generally, more frequent forms and stems are likely to replace less
frequent ones. This frequency effect is more pronounced when the substitute
has a simple structure.
4.3.4. What base forms for learners of L2 French?
Finally, we wanted to determine what forms are used by Russian learners as

base forms for conjugations.
We used Bybee’s base form criteria as listed below to analyze the tense-
person forms elicited in the task. According to Bybee (1985), the base form
of a verbal paradigm is not semantically marked. It should therefore also be
frequent and acquired early. Indeed, a high frequency implies a reduced
probability of error. Finally, a base form should be used to build other forms
of the verbal paradigm. In our view, there are two possible alternatives for
the latter criterion: a base form can directly replace another form or it can be
used as a stem to which an appropriate marker is added.
In order to identify the most plausible base forms among the seven
target forms produced by the learners, we first analyzed the accuracy rates on
the forms and stems for each target. The results are listed in Table 9
according to the proficiency level of the learners.
Table 10. Correct forms and stems as a function of target forms and proficiency levels
(mean rates and standard deviations)
Target Correct form rates Correct stem rates
form LP HP LP HP
3PR 74.44 (16.51) 92.20 (8.59) 75.45 (16.51) 92.23 (8.60)
INF 65.55 (16.87) 95.54 (16.92) 65.57 (27.08) 95.56 (7.62)
PP 64.42 (23.71) 84.98 (14.84) 64.46 (22.82) 85.01 (15.17)
4PR 44.44 (21.10) 70.54 (25.29) 45.56 (17.78) 70.01 (16.91)
3FUT 23.89 (17.51) 62.77 (25.17) 43.89 (21.25) 70.57 (17.50)
6PR 22.22 (22.82) 65.00 (15.17) 27.22 (22.60) 66.11 (14.94)
3SUBJ 21.12 (27.08) 52.22 (7.62) 24.99 (19.92) 52.78 (24.13)
3PR – présent 3sg., INF - infinitif, PP – participe passé, 4PR – présent 1pl.,
3FUT – futur simple 3sg., 6PR – présent 3pl., 3SUBJ – subjonctif 3sg.
In this table, we observe that three forms - 3PR, INF and PP (Forms1) -
differ from the others (Forms2) in exhibiting higher rates of accurate
production. We checked whether the accuracy rates were statistically
different in the Forms1 group.
In the productions of the LP learners, there was no significant difference
between the accuracy rates for 3PR and INF (t = 1.086, p = 0.287), for PP
and 3PR (t = 1.378, p = 0.178), or for PP and INF (t = 0.123, p = 0.903). The
accuracy rates on the target forms in the Forms1 group (3PR, INF, PP) were
systematically higher than the rates in the Forms2 group (4PR, 6PR, 3SUBJ,
3FUT) (p<0.01).
An almost identical pattern was found in the productions of the HP
learners. No significant difference was found between the rates of correct
production of inflected forms of 3PR and INF (t = -1.123, p = 0.271), or
between PP and 3PR (t = 1.603, p = 0.120). The difference was significant
between PP and INF (t = -2.408, p = 0.022). As in the productions of the LP
learners, the accuracy rates for forms in the Forms1 group were higher than
in the Forms2 group (p<0.02).
Overall, the three forms considered in this study were distinguished by
high rates of production accuracy at both levels of proficiency. This implies
that these forms are less prone to error than other elicited forms, even in the
productions of LP learners.
In order to check whether the high accuracy rates of these forms were
frequency-based, we performed bivariate correlation tests between the
accuracy rates and frequencies of the forms and the stems for each target
form and for each group of subjects. The summary of the correlation
coefficients is presented in Table 11.
We found strong and positive significant correlations between frequency
and accuracy for three forms in the Forms2 group (4PR, 6PR and 3SUBJ),
thus indicating that the greater the surface frequency of these forms, the
better they are produced. Interestingly, the frequency - performance
correlation was negative for 3FUT in the productions of the LP learners. It

should be emphasized that, in a study which focused on the three base form
candidates (3PR, INF and PP), we observed no significant correlation
between frequency and accuracy rates. Thus, in line with the second criterion
defining the base form, the accuracy rates for 3PR, INF and PP were high,
despite the fact that there is no correlation between the frequency of forms
and stems and their accuracy.
The last criterion proposed by Bybee (1985) to determine the base form,
is that it should be used to build the verbal paradigm. Table 12 summarizes
all the cases where two verbal stems substitute one another. To obtain the
average of 555 stem selection errors, the 64 errors in the choice of inflection
were deducted from the total number of errors built with existent stems (see
Table 8).
Table 12. Rates of use of verbal stems as substitutes for others
Substitute stem Number % Example
3PR 281 50.63% dwa for dwav
INF 70 12.61% fEr for fõ
PP 25 4.50% pri for prEn
4PR 90 16.21% dəve for dy
6PR 65 11.71% bwavõ for byvõ
5PR 17 3.06% fEt for fõ
PS 2 0.36% fi for fE
3SUBJ 5 0.09% fas for fõ
Total 555 100%
These results indicate that, among the forms which are candidates for
base form status (3PR, INF and PP), the 3PR stem is the most frequent
substitute. The infinitif is also used as a a basis for building errors. We see
that, despite its high resistance to errors independent of frequency, the
participe passé is rarely used as a substitute for other verbal stems.
group 3PR PP INF 4PR 6PR 3SUBJ 3FUT
Form LP -0.197 0.517 0.391 0.512 0.139 0.769* -0.789*

accuracy x p=0.708 p=0.085 p=0.444 p=0.089 p=0.668 p=0.003 p=0.002
Form HP 0.488 0.513 0.642 0.446 0.756* 0.676* 0.300
frequency p=0.326 p=0.088 p=0.170 p=0.146 p=0.004 p=0.016 p=0.343
Form LP -0.001 0.433 0.549 0.418 0.110 0.554 -0.184
Stem HP 0.588 0.549 0.717 0.597* 0.670* 0.563 -0.015
Stem LP -0.197 0.517 0.433 0.538 0.113 0.704* -0.660*
Form HP 0.488 0.513 0.549 0.416 0.716* 0.655* 0.494
Stem LP -0.001 0.391 0.549 0.436 0.099 0.637* 0.233
stem HP 0.588 0.582 0.652 0.570* 0.640* 0.542 0.068
The acquisition of French verbal tenses by Russian adult learners
frequency
frequencies (* - the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level)
p=0.220 p=0.225 p=0.185 p=0.053 p=0.025 p=0.069 p=0.835

Table 11. Correlations between the accuracy rates of forms and stems and their token
193
It is not difficult to see that Russian learners use the 3PR to build the
verbal paradigm. In contrast, the use of the INF is more ambiguous because
of a low occurrence of substitution errors. To observe how the INF was used
to build the verbal paradigm, we performed a more detailed analysis of the
stem choice errors built with existent stems. In all the cases when a substitute
infinitif stem was used, the three most frequent targets were the 3FUT (19/70
replacements by an infinitif stem: il /dəvwara/ replaces il /dəvra/), the 6PR
(18/70: ils /prãd/ replaces ils /prEn/) and the 4PR (16/70: nous /prãdõ/
replaces nous /prənõ/).
In the following analysis, we focused on the errors in these three target
forms where two specific conditions were fulfilled: (1) an existent stem was
used; (2) an appropriate inflection was used.
When the target form was the 6PR, the two conditions were fulfilled in
110/200 errors (55%), while the infinitif stem was used in only 11 errors
(10%). The inflection of the 4PR was generally correctly chosen: 112/152 or
73.6% of errors were marked with the correct inflection /õ/. However, the use
of existent stems for this target form was rare. Existent stems were used in
only 31 errors, and an infinitif stem was used in only 4 errors.
As for the 3FUT, the rate of correct inflections when an existent stem
was used was 64% (31/48). The two conditions were fulfilled in 17% of
incorrect futur simple forms (31/179). We examined the stems that were used
to build the futur simple. As can be seen in Table 13, the infinitif stem was
most often used to replace a futur simple stem. Therefore, the errors in the
futur simple represent the most salient cases of the use of the infinitif stem to
build other forms.
Table 13. Errors in stem choice in the futur simple classified as a function of
substitute stems
Substitute stem Number Example
infinitif 19 fEra for fəra
Présent 1&2pl., imparfait 8 byvra for bwara
Présent 3pl. 2 bwavra for bwara
Présent sg. 2 dwara for dəvra
Total 31
Further evidence that the infinitif is used to build the futur simple lies
beyond the scope of our error analysis. We therefore reanalyzed the mean
accuracy rates of futur simple stem selection in two groups of verbs: first, the
verbs which share the same stem in the infinitif and the futur simple; second,
the verbs in which these two stems are different. In our task, this distinction
contrasted the verbs prendre, craindre, boire and traduire that use a single
stem for the futur simple and the infinitif with the verbs faire and devoir
which use two different stems. The mean rates of correct futur simple stem
choice in these two groups of verbs are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Correct futur simple stem choice in verbs which use one or two stems for
the futur simple and the infinitif (mean rate and standard deviation)
Rates of correct stem choice Rates of correct stem choice for

Group
for verbs with one stem verbs with two stems
LP 61.38 (14.95) 38.25 (25.65)

HP 76.75 (13.36) 86.75 (5.32)
We compared the rates of correct futur simple stem choice for these two
verb types. Among the LP group productions, we observed a tendentially
higher rate of correct stem choice for the verbs that use the same stem for the
infinitif and the futur simple (t=2.006, p=0.072). This trend did not, however,
affect the productions of the HP learners group (t=1.414, p=0.188).
To check whether or not the greater accuracy of stem choice on verbs
that use the same stem for the infinitif and the futur simple in the productions
of the LP group might be due to their higher frequency, we compared the
mean frequencies of the stems of the two groups of verbs in the NSF corpus
which corresponded to the input of the LP learners. The mean frequency of
the futur simple stem of the verbs which use two different stems is 39.38
(SD=25.50) per million words. This rate is not significantly different from
the mean frequency of the futur simple stem of the verbs which use a single
for the infinitif and the futur simple (M=27.21, SD=21.11) (t=0.882,
p=0.398). This suggests that frequency does not explain the greater accuracy
with verbs that use one stem for the futur simple and the infinitif on the part
of the learners in the LP group. In such conditions, it is clear that the infinitif
stem is used to build the forms of the futur simple.
More generally, the implementation of Bybee’s criteria (Bybee 1985)
for the definition of the base forms of the verb paradigm leads us to conclude
that the stems of the présent 3sg. and the stem of the infinitif play this role for
Russian learners of French L2.
These results support the linguistic model proposed by Bonami & Boyé
(2003) as well as Bybee’s behavioral model, since these both predict the base
form status of the présent singulier. It should be noted that similar results
were obtained by Thomas (2005) who studied the acquisition of French
verbal morphology by Swedish learners. It is possible to imagine that the
base form status of the présent singulier and the infinitif might be explained
by the structure of the French language, given that the same results have been
obtained for learners with a different L1.
5. Conclusion
In the present study, we observed the production of verbal stems in Russian

learners of French L2. The primary analysis of the production of correct
forms and errors showed that stem selection takes longer to be acquired than
marking by inflection. We investigated the way in which token frequency and
the presence of base forms influence stem selection.
First, we considered the role of token frequency on form and stem
production.
• The issue addressed here was whether the frequency of forms and stems
influences their correct production. As we expected, the forms and the
stems of verbs with high cumulative frequencies were correctly produced
significantly more often than those of verbs with low cumulative
frequencies. The analysis of the correlations between the rates of
accuracy on the target forms and their frequencies showed that the forms
of 4PR, 6PR and 3SUBJ are produced more accurately when they are
more frequent.
• In order to see whether the frequency effect changes as the level of
proficiency in French increases, we observed the rates of accuracy on
verbs with high and low cumulative frequencies in two groups of
learners as a function of their proficiency level. We observed that the
more advanced learners (HP group) produced the frequent verbs more
accurately than verbs with low cumulative frequencies. This difference
was not found in the productions of the less advanced learners (LP
group). An analysis of the frequency - accuracy correlations revealed a
change between the two levels of proficiency. The correlation between
the frequencies of forms and stems and the corresponding accuracy rates
was greater in the HP group than in the LP group.
• We also analyzed the error patterns to find out whether the frequency
effect can account for the substitution errors built with existent forms
and stems. Substitute forms and stems with simple structure (SF for SF
and SF for CF error patterns) were systematically more frequent than the
target forms and stems that they replaced. When the substitute was a
complex form (CF for CF and CF for SF patterns), its surface frequency
was no higher than that of the target form. However, it should be noted
that in the case of the CF for CF error pattern, the substitute stem was
more frequent than the target stem.
To summarize, we can see that the stem choice is subject to a token
frequency effect even in forms where stem selection is crucial in order to
express tense, mood and person (e.g. subjonctif présent, participe passé).
More generally, these findings show that the learners are able to detect
statistical patterns of use of verbal forms in the textbook or in the more global
input.
Second, using Bybee’s criteria, we tried to determine whether the French
verb really has a base form for Russian learners of French L2.
• To identify what the base forms of the French verb might be during L2
acquisition, we analyzed verbal forms in the light of the idea that a base
form should be semantically non-marked, frequent, acquired at an early
stage of language development and used to build the paradigm (Bybee
1985). First, we found that three forms were distinguished by a high rate
of accuracy - the 3PR, INF and the PP - and that this was observed in
both levels of language learner. The forms in question were not equally
likely to be used to build other forms. Indeed, the 3PR was often used to
replace other forms directly. The INF was not used to replace forms as a
whole, but operated as a stem for building the futur simple forms with a
non-zero inflection. The PP does not meet all the criteria of a base form:
it is semantically marked and is not often used to replace other forms.
These findings are interesting bearing in mind that, in French, the choice
of the stem can be crucial in expressing differences in person, tense or mood
when there is a zero inflection. We have shown that stem choice is influenced
by at least two factors that are different from the notions of verbal tense,
person and mood, i.e. token frequency and the base form status of the présent
singulier and the infinitif. In other words, even if L2 learners have already
acquired conceptual differences between different verbal categories, the
processing of the corresponding surface forms can be facilitated or inhibited
by the token frequency of the targets, by the frequency of other competing
stems of the same verb and by the fact that the target stem is different or
identical to one of the base form stems.
References
Ågren M. (2005). La morphologie du nombre dans le syntagme verbal en

français L2 écrit. L’accord de la 3ème personne du pluriel. Acquisition et
production de la morphologie flexionnelle. Actes du Festival de la
morphologie. PERLES: petites études romanes de Lund. Extra seriem
20:131-150.
Bartning I.; Schlyter S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de
développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies 14
(3): 281-299.
Berko J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14: 150-
177.
Birdsong D.; Flege J. E. (2001). Regular-irregular dissociations in L2
acquisition of English morphology, in Do, A.H.J., Dominguez, L. &
Johansen, A. (eds) BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA:

Cascadilla Press, 123-132.
Bonami O.; Boyé G. (2002). Suppletion and dependency in inflectional
morphology, in Frank van Eynde, Lars Hellan, et Dorothee Beermann
(eds), Proceedings of the HPSG-2001 Conference. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Bonami O.; Boyé G. (2003). Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la
conjugaison du français. Langages 152: 102-126.
Boyé G. (2000). Problèmes de morpho-phonologie verbale en français, en
espagnol et en italien. Thèse présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade
de docteur de l’Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot.
Brovetto C.; Ullman M. T. (2001). First vs. second language: A differential
reliance on grammatical computations and lexical memory. CUNY,
Conference Poster presented at the 14th Annual CUNY conference on
Human Sentence Processing, University of Pennsylvania.
Bybee J. L. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning
and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee J. L. (1991). Natural morphology: the organization of paradigms and
language acquisition, in: T. Huebner; C. Ferguson, (eds) Crosscurrents
in second language acquisition and linguistic theories. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 67-91.
Bybee J. L.; Hopper P. (éd.) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of
linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Debrenne M. (2006).. Franzuzskij yazyk v retchevoj praktike russkikh:
mejyazykovaya deviatologiya [La langue française dans la pratique
langagière des Russes. Déviatologie interlinguistique]. Novossibirsk:
Novossibirskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.
Ellis N. C.; Schmidt R. (1997). Morphology and longer-distance
dependencies: laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 19: 145-171.
Ellis N. C. (2002). Frequency effets in language processing: A review with
implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition.
Studies in second language acquisition 24 (2): 143-188.
Gor K.; Chernigovskaya T. (2004). Formal instruction and the mental
lexicon: The acquisition of verbal morphology, in Housen, A. &
Pierrard, M. (eds) Current issues in Instructed second language
learning. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter :131-164.
Granget C. (2005). Développement de l’accord verbal avec un sujet pluriel
dans les récits écrits d’apprenants germanophones scolarisés en français.
Acquisition et production de la morphologie flexionnelle. Actes du
Festival de la morphologie. PERLES: petites études romanes de Lund.
Extra seriem 20, 111-124.
Hedbor C. (2005). Le traitement implicite et explicite de l’inflexion de la 3ème

personne du pluriel du verbe chez les apprenants guidés du français LE.
Labeau E. (2005). Beyond the aspect hypothesis. Tense-aspect development
in advanced L2 French. Bern: Peter Lang.
Langacker R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1.
Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kirkici B. (2005). Words and rules in L2 processing: An analysis of the dual-
mechanism model. Thesis submitted to the graduate school of social
sciences of Middle East technical university.
Marcus G.F.; Pinker S.; Ullman M.; Hollander M.; Rosen T.J.; Xu F. (1992).
Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development. 57 (4). Serial No. 228.
New B.; Pallier C.; Ferrand L.; R. Matos. (2001). Une base de données
lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. Année
Psycholinguistique 101: 447-462. http://www.lexique.org
Nouveau D. (2007). Homophonie et morphologie verbale en FLE: Les
groupes verbaux en -ir. Ms., Radboud University Nijmegen.
Payre-Ficout C. (2007). L’apprentissage du prétérit et du present perfect
dans le cadre scolaire: étude extensive chez des apprenants
francophones du secondaire et des étudiants du supérieur. Thèse
présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade de docteur de l’Université
Stendhal Grenoble III.
Pinker S. (1991). Rules of language. Science 253: 530-535.
Pinker S.; Prince A.S. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a
parallel distribued processing model of language acquisition. Cognition
28: 73-193.
Pinker S.; Prince A.S. (1991). Regular and irregular morphology and the
psychological status of rules of grammar. Proceedings of the 17th
Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistic Society. Berkley, CA: Berkley
Linguistic Society.
Schlyter S. (2005). Formes verbales au pluriel à l’oral plus marquées chez les
apprenants guidés que non-guidés ? Acquisition et production de la
morphologie flexionnelle. Actes du Festival de la morphologie.
PERLES: petites études romanes de Lund. Extra seriem 20, 125-130.
Schlyter S.; Bartning I. L’accord sujet-verbe en français L2 parlé. Actes du
Stemberger J.P. (2004). Phonological priming and irregular past. Journal of
Memory and Language 50: 82-95.
Tabak W.; Schreuder R.; Baayen R.H. (2005). The processing of regular and
irregular verbs. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on the
Identification and Representation of Verb Features and Verb Classes.
Saarbrücken, 121-126.
Thomas A. (2005). Formes ambiguës en –E: input et catégories sémantiques.
Ullman M.T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and
second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition. 4 (1): 105-122.
From tense and aspect to modality:
The acquisition of future, conditional and subjunctive
morphology in L2 French. A preliminary study 1
Martin HOWARD
University College, Cork
1. Introduction
Of all aspects of the L2 learner’s linguistic development, the acquisition of

temporality has given rise to a multitude of studies which have provided a
range of insights into the learner’s gradual acquisition of aspectuo-temporal
morphology and the factors at work behind such acquisition. These findings
can be summarized by saying that morphology is not necessarily immediately
present in the L2 learner’s linguistic repertoire, but rather reliance on
pragmatic and lexical devices is very evident in the early stages of
acquisition. In particular, work in a European naturalistic context by
researchers in the European Science Foundation Project (see Dietrich et al.
1995) has documented such devices across a range of target languages with
regard to the learner’s reliance on temporal adverbs and adverbials as well as
the learner’s recourse to the pragmatic principle of chronological sequencing
of events, reflecting Klein’s (1986) Principle of Natural Order. Within an
instructed context, such devices are also noted in the extensive work carried
out by Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig on L2 English in a North-American context
(for a substantial overview of that work, see Bardovi-Harlig 2000).
Furthermore, apart from such explicit devices, the more implicit expression
of temporality through reliance on the temporal frame of reference provided
by the interlocutor is also noteworthy, as well as the latter’s skills of
inference when more explicit aspectuo-temporal devices are missing. Even
when morphological forms are used, such forms appear to constitute
lexicalised forms or alloforms rather than productive use of such
morphology.
Beyond such a pragmatic and pre-grammatical stage, the
grammaticalisation of temporality has been the subject of a range of detailed
studies which document the emergence of the different aspectuo-temporal
markers of the L2 in learner language. In the case of L2 English, the
emergence of this morphology is first marked by use of an infinitive form
resembling the simple present which is characterised by its overuse in past
1
I gratefully acknowledge the support of the College of Arts, Celtic Studies and
Social Sciences, University College, Cork in facilitating research for this paper
through a research grant.
© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012) : 201-223.

202 Martin Howard
time contexts in particular before the past time forms emerge. In the case of
her instructed adult learners in the US, Bardovi-Harlig (2000) reports that the
first of these forms to emerge is the simple past followed by the past
progressive, and then the present perfect, and finally the pluperfect. Housen
(2002) offers similar evidence in the case of his investigation of child L2
learners of English in an immersion school setting in Belgium. Even when
such morphology is present in learner language, however, its usage is
characterised by considerable under- and over-use, whereby some linguistic
contexts appear to (dis)favour use of a particular form, giving rise to
considerable variation at work in the learner’s aspectuo-temporal system –
see Bayley (1996) who examines such aspectuo-temporal variation from a
variationist perspective.
Such gradual emergence and subsequent variation underlying the
acquisition of aspectuo-temporal morphology has been observed in a range of
L2s. In the case of L2 French, which is of specific interest to the study to be
presented here, the sequence of acquisition reflects that of the simple present
form in L2 English, following which some past participles begin to be used,
before being used with an auxiliary form to constitute the passé composé.
While the imparfait emerges even later, the learner may already have
produced some forms of être (to be) and avoir (to have); – for detailed
analyses of such development in L2 French, see Dietrich et al. (1995), Harley
(1992), Noyau (1991), Schlyter (1990), Véronique (1987). Similarly, the
plus-que-parfait, equivalent to the pluperfect, is very late to emerge - see
Howard (2005a). In the case of the various forms used to express past time,
the linguistic variation previously referred to in the case of L2 English has
also given rise to a range of fruitful studies of L2 French, whereby a number
of patterns of variation have been observed to be at work as the learner gains
increasing control over the use of the various past time forms in real time -
see Howard (2004, 2005c), Kihlstedt (1998) and Labeau (2005) for an
investigation of the factors believed to constrain the learner’s use of
aspectuo-temporal morphology in relation to grammatical and inherent
lexical aspect, as well as discourse grounding.
While the emphasis has been very evidently on the expression of past
time, more recent studies have looked beyond the past to the expression of
futurity, as well as modality and irrealis involving the conditional and the
subjunctive. Although studies are few, in the case of L2 English, K. Bardovi-
Harlig’s more recent work has focused, for example, on the gradual
emergence of ‘will’ and ‘going to’ and their subsequent competition with the
simple present and present progressive forms in future time contexts—see
Bardovi-Harlig (2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2005). In the case of L2 French,
Nadasdi et al.’s (2003) work focuses on the variable use of the French
equivalents of such forms from the alternative perspective of the
development of their Canadian immersion learners’ sociolinguistic
The acquisition of morphology in L2 French 203
competence, finding that the periphrastic form dominates in their

interlanguage, albeit not to the same extent as it does in Quebec francophone
native speakers.
Beyond futurity, the expression of irrealis has also given rise to some
studies in L2 English and French. For example, Swain & Lapkin (1990)
investigate the use of the conditional from a sociolinguistic perspective in the
case of Canadian immersion learners of French, finding that their learners
avoid use of this form, seemingly due to its structural complexity. In the case
of the subjunctive form in L2 French, studies are similarly rare, with the
exception of Bartning (2003) who finds that this form is acquired very late
among Swedish advanced learners, with just a few tokens of its usage
occurring primarily following ‘falloir’ (must) in the matrix clause. It is only
her near-native speakers who have had much greater naturalistic exposure
who demonstrate more productive use of this form following a wider range of
lexical verbs in the matrix clause and some subordinating conjunctions.
Beyond such studies, work involving other languages is scarce with the
exception of L2 Italian and Spanish 2. In the case of the former, Giacalone
Ramat (1990, 1992) provides the following acquisitional order for adult
learners with various L1 backgrounds:
present > past participle (also with auxiliary) > imperfect > future >
conditional > subjunctive
Although she does not include the progressive form in this acquisition order,
other work by Giacalone Ramat (1995) indicates that this form is late
acquired in L2 Italian, following the imperfect. In the case of future time
reference in L2 Italian, Wiberg (2002) provides comparative studies of
bilingual Swedish adolescents, L2 learners at both an advanced and pre-
advanced stage, and native speakers. Her findings, in particular, demonstrate
that while the learners use the inflected future form, their use of this form
alternates with the simple present as a function of verb type in terms of
inherent lexical aspect, as well as the discursive context, whereby learners
have a tendency to present future events as habitual actions in the present.
In the case of L2 Spanish, results of existing studies also reflect aspects
of the hierarchical order observed for L2 Italian. For instance, with regard to
the expression of past time specifically, various studies by Roger Andersen
have outlined the following acquisitional sequence, as summarized by
Andersen (1991): firstly, the unmarked base form, similar to the third person
singular present, is used in past time contexts, after which an opposition
2
It should be noted that the morphological forms concerned are not necessarily
directly comparable across the Romance languages—although they are in many
regards similar, forms such as the subjunctive and the conditional are seen to
play a more important role in Spanish and Italian.
204 Martin Howard
between this form and the perfective préterito appears. It is only at a later
stage that the imperfecto is contrasted with the préterito. Salaberry (1999)
offers similar results, finding that the préterito is used as a default form until
the imperfecto emerges at a much later stage. Apart from the past time forms,
the subjunctive has also given rise to a number of fruitful studies in L2
Spanish—for example, Terrell et al. (1987) note the minimal use of this form
in their learners’ speech, giving rise to a high frequency of error, which
contrasts with their far higher level of metalinguistic awareness surrounding
its usage, as tested on a formal grammar test. Use of the subjunctive in L2
Spanish has also been the focus of study in relation to the impact of various
pedagogical methods. For example, in an extensive study of the relationship
between syntactic and morphological competence, Collentine (1995, 1998)
examines how development of the learner’s syntactic knowledge might be a
pre-requisite to more appropriate use of the subjunctive. His findings are
ambiguous, however, insofar as he fails to find an absolute advantage for his
learner-informants who received instruction in relation to both the
morphological and syntactic use of the subjunctive, as opposed to simply
learning the subjunctive.
In conclusion, the acquisition patterns put forward for L2 English and
the various Romance languages are very insightful, reflecting the very
extensive investigation that tense-aspect-mood has undergone. However, in
the case of L2 French in particular, the focus on individual forms, namely the
subjunctive or the conditional or the expression of futurity, without
comparing how the acquisition of such forms relates both to each other, and
to previously acquired forms, is regrettable. As Bardovi-Harlig (1999: 373-4)
writes, “[W]ork in the tense-aspect system in interlanguage has generally
avoided the third element 3 in what is referred to as the “TMA” or “tense-
mood-aspect system” […] At the level of description, we need to explore the
hypothesized sequences for the spreading of morphology, for which only the
earliest stages have been documented.” Such comments are particularly true
given that we know that the acquisition of an individual form does not occur
without impinging on use of previously acquired forms in view of the
morpho-syntactic variation and competition which we know underlie the
learner’s use of morphological devices. Indeed, in the case of L2 French it is
only by a process of indirect inference that we can surmise that the
morphological expression of the conceptual entities of futurity, modality and
irrealis is late acquired compared to past time morphology; for example,
Bartning (1997) observes that such morphological forms are generally
missing even in advanced learner language, so that their acquisition remains
to be documented. Based on a more extensive advanced learner corpus,
3
Although ambiguous here, the third element refers to modality in Bardovi-
Harlig’s paper.
Bartning (2008) indicates that such forms are only observed in the very
advanced stages - stages D and E in Bartning & Schlyter’s (2004) 5-stage
developmental sequence for Swedish learners of French. However, it remains
unclear how, with the various forms concerned here, their acquisition is
interrelated, so that their acquisition may be inter-dependent as well as being
subject to considerable variation in terms of their contexts of usage. Given
such a lacuna in the literature, the study presented here aims to provide a
comparative investigation of their acquisition, based on their analysis in a
database of advanced L2 French which has already been the subject of a
range of studies concerning the expression of past time—see Howard (2002a,
2002b, 2005b).
Before outlining the study undertaken, we will in the following, provide
some background detail on the use of the forms concerned in target language
French.
2. The future, the conditional and the subjunctive in target language

French
2.1. The expression of futurity
The morphological expression of futurity in target language French is based

on three distinct forms, namely a futurate present, an inflected form and a
periphrastic form, as exemplified respectively in (1) – (3) 4:
(1) je pars demain
I leave-PRES tomorrow
(2) je partirai demain
I leave-INFL FUT tomorrow
(3) je vais partir demain
I go-PERI FUT leave tomorrow
The morphological choice that such forms pose to the speaker has been the
subject of extensive prescriptive characterisation, whereby prescriptive
grammars have attempted to attribute distinct semantic values to each form—
see, for example, Confais (1995), Fleischman (1982), Gougenheim (1971),
Sundell (1991), Vet (1993). Although not always in accord, such prescriptive
approaches typically assign to the periphrastic future and futurate present
semantic values of certainty, immediacy, and speaker engagement, whereby
the occurrence of the event in the future is believed to be conceptualized as
certain, proximal and of particular relevance to the speaker. In contrast, the
inflected future prescriptively assumes opposing values whereby its potential
4
A future anterior form also exists, but is less the focus of analysis here.
206 Martin Howard
occurrence is deemed to be less certain, more distal, and the speaker’s

involvement with the event is more neutral.
While such prescriptive approaches abound, more descriptive studies
point to the discrepancy between such norms and their manifestation in
native speaker discourse. For example, a range of studies in a Canadian
francophone context suggest that such neat semantic usage of each form is
less evident than the overlap in use of each future form across semantic
contexts—see, for example Blondeau (2006), Deshaies & Laforge (1981),
Emirkanian & Sankoff (1985), Poplack & Turpin (1999), and Zimmer
(1985). Such overlap in usage is further evident in the predominance of the
periphrastic form as the most frequent form used in future time contexts—
Poplack & Turpin report a rate of occurrence of 73% as opposed to just 20%
for the inflected future and 7% for the futurate present, reflecting a long
process of gradual loss of the inflected future form over the centuries. While
the loss is also documented in Metropolitan French, use of the inflected form
has nonetheless been found to be more frequent—Jeanjean (1988) reports a
rate of use of 58% compared to 42% for the periphrastic form based on the
GARS 5 corpus of spoken French.
2.2. The conditional
In terms of its morphological form, the conditional in French is often seen to

be homophonous with the inflected future form, with the exception of 1st and
2nd person plural contexts, as exemplified in (4) – (5) 6:
(4) je sortirai v. je sortirais
I go out-FUT v. I go out-COND
‘I will go out’ v. ‘I would go out’
(5) nous sortirons v. nous sortirions
we go out-FUT v. we go out-COND
‘we will go out’ v. ‘we would go out’
While prototypically referring to hypothetical situations in main clauses

dependent on a condition marked by si or au cas où in the subordinate clause,
prescriptive norms propose the following tense concordance rules depending
on the degree to which the hypothesis in the protasis is believed to hold true.
For example, the present is prescribed in both the protasis and apodosis when
a general truth is believed to hold true, as in (6). In contrast, the inflected
future is prescribed in the apodosis when the condition presented in the
protasis is conceptualized as being less true but nonetheless realistic, as in
5
Groupe aixois de recherche syntaxique.
6
Although the phonetic distinction between /e/ and /є/ is prescribed, the
distinction is increasingly found to only occur in very formal speech.
(7). This differs from a less realistic condition, the outcome of which is
perceived as improbable, in which case the conditional is prescribed in the
apodosis, along with the imparfait in the protasis, as in (8).
(6) ‘si’ + Present + Present:
si vous échouez à l’examen une deuxième fois,
if you fail-PRES at the exam a second time,
vous n’avez pas le droit de le repasser une troisième fois
you NEG have-PRES NEG the right to it resit a third time
‘if you fail the exam a second time, you don’t have the right to sit it a third time’
(7) ‘si’ + Present + Inflected Future:
si vous m’appelez à l’avance, je viendrai
if you me call-PRES at the-advance, I come-INFL FUT
vous rencontrer à la gare
you meet at the station
‘if you call me in advance, I will come to meet you at the railway station’
(8) ‘si’ + Imparfait + Conditional:
si vous achetiez une voiture, je ne devrais pas
if you buy-IMP a car, I NEG have to-COND NEG
vous rencontrer à la gare chaque fois
you meet at the station each time
‘if you bought a car, I wouldn’t have to meet you at the railway station every
time’
A final component of such tense-concordancing concerns the expression

of hypothetical situations in the past, where the conditional anterior is
prescribed in the apodosis, along with the pluperfect form in the si-protasis,
as exemplified in (9):
(9) ‘si’ + Pluperfect + Conditional Anterior:
Si j’étais allé en Australie pour les vacances, je ne serais
If I AUX go-PLP to Australia for the holidays, I NEG AUX
pas revenu
NEG return-COND ANT
‘If I had gone to Australia for the holidays, I wouldn’t have come back’
These tense-concordancing rules in native-speaker discourse allow for an

interesting investigation of their emergence in learner language, constituting
a crucial component in the study of the acquisition of the conditional in target
language French.
2.3. The subjunctive
Consisting of a morphological form which is homophonous to the present

indicative form of regularly conjugated verbs, as in:
208 Martin Howard
(10) qu’il donne

that he give-PRES / SUBJ
‘that he gives / might give’
unlike its more salient form on irregularly conjugated verbs, as in:

(11) qu’elle sort v. qu’elle sorte
that she go out-PRES v. that she go out-SUBJ
‘that she goes out’ v. ‘that she might go out’
the present subjunctive 7 is prescriptively realised in embedded clauses

following a number of matrix verbs expressing ‘unreality’ versus ‘reality’
(Grevisse 1993, Imbs, 1960), ‘opinion’ and ‘judgement’ (Damourette and
Pichon 1929), ‘possibility’ versus ‘probability’ (Guillaume 1929, Martin
1983), ‘doubt’ versus ‘certitude’ (Winters 1993). It is also prescribed
following a number of subordinating complementizers including those
expressing intention and result, restriction, time, concession, and condition.
Finally, the subjunctive is also prescribed following adjectives presented in
their superlative form where superlative forms impose a restrictive
interpretation on their scope. Examples of these types of subjunctive usage
are respectively provided in (12) - (14):
(12) il est possible que le train soit en retard
it is possible that the train be-PRES SUBJ in delay
‘it’s possible that the train may be late’
(13) vous réussirez à l’examen pourvu que vous fassiez
you succeed-FUT at the exam provided that you do-PRES SUBJ
une bonne préparation
a good preparation
‘you will pass the exam if you prepare well’
(14) c’est le livre le plus ennuyeux que j’ai(e) jamais lu
it be-PRES the book the more boring that I AUX-PAST SUBJ ever read
‘it’s the most boring book that I’ve ever read’
In contrast to such prescriptive norms, however, Poplack (1992)

questions their reality in real language usage, where in a Canadian bilingual
context she observes considerable variation in the native speaker’s choice
between indicative and subjunctive forms in supposedly categorical contexts
of subjunctive usage. Given such variation, she suggests that the subjunctive
is lexically-primed, co-occurring in reality with a far narrower range of
lexical verbs in the matrix clause than prescriptive grammars would suggest,
7
The past subjunctive consists of a composed form, much like the passé
composé, and is prescribed in contexts where the occurrence of the event is
anterior or simultaneous to the subjunctive-inducing verb.
meaning that the subjunctive form has lost a lot of ground in terms of the
extent of its usage, sometimes not occurring at all following matrix verbs
which supposedly require its usage. Indeed, S. Poplack finds that the
subjunctive only occurs with any regularity with 4 lexical verbs, namely
‘aller’ (to go) (87%), ‘faire’ (to do / make) (86%), ‘avoir’ (to have) (66%),
and ‘être’ (to be) (65%). Furthermore, this subjunctive usage co-occurs with
a very limited range of subjunctive-selecting matrices, namely ‘falloir’
(must), which along with ‘vouloir’ (to want) and ‘aimer’ (to like) “together
account for nearly ¾ of all the subjunctive governors in the corpus” (Poplack
2001: 417). In a further Canadian study, Laurier (1989) also documents the
loss in use of the subjunctive among francophone speakers in Ontario, so that
its usage is primarily found to follow ‘falloir’ (must) in the main clause,
similar to Poplack’s findings. In contrast, findings for metropolitan French
point to more robust usage of the subjunctive, demonstrating little social
variation. For example, in the case of her findings from the GARS project on
spoken French, Blanche-Benveniste (1990: 197) writes, “d’après les corpus
que nous avons rassemblés au GARS, le mode subjonctif n’est pas du tout
moribond ni même en passe de l’être” (based on the corpora that we collected
within the GARS, the subjunctive mood is far from being lost or even on its
to being lost). Based on his investigation of the Orléans corpus, Sand (2003)
similarly observes the highly productive usage of the subjunctive form.
Having presented an overview of previous work on their usage in native
speaker discourse, we will in the following detail the study undertaken which
aims to document the acquisition and use of the various forms concerned in
advanced learner language.
3. Study
The study is based on quantitative analyses of a database of the spoken

French interlanguage of 18 Irish anglophone learners who had been learning
French for 8-9 years. Aged between 20-22 years, all the learners had chosen
to specialise in French for their university studies, where they also studied
one other subject, which in some cases was another language such as
German, Italian, or Spanish. The learner-informants had also studied Irish for
many years at both primary and high school level.
In view of a number of (extra)linguistic factors characterising their
language acquisition, the learners can be classified as advanced instructed
learners, following the criteria proposed by Bartning (1997)—they had been
learning French for quite a number of years in a classroom environment, so
that their metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 was highly developed,
following long-term explicit grammar instruction during their programme of
studies. They also demonstrated a high level of motivation in view of their
210 Martin Howard
decision to specialise in the French language as part of their university

studies.
From a developmental perspective, their linguistic repertoire
demonstrates that they have surpassed the stage of creative
grammaticalisation, such that the L2 grammatical forms are deemed to be
less emerging than having already emerged. In spite of such development, the
learners’ productive use of those grammatical forms is characterised by
considerable variation, such that it remains for the learners to establish
greater control over their more automatised usage in real-time. This variation
in L2 usage is often at odds with the advanced learner’s metalinguistic
knowledge, as developed through formal grammar classes. Apart from such
classes, our learner-informants did, however, also follow courses in the
spoken language through a weekly oral language class, while also following a
number of literature courses where the language of instruction was primarily
French. Furthermore, some of our learners had spent a period of residence in
France through an international exchange programme, which allowed them to
attend a French university for an academic year. During that time, they
attended the same classes as their native-speaker counterparts through an
agreed programme of study with their home university. They did not,
however, receive any formal instruction in the French language. Their
exposure to French was of a more informal nature than they had been used to
prior to their stay in France. Indeed, these ‘study abroad’ learners reported a
lot of naturalistic contact with native French speakers while in France, where
they were housed in the university halls of residence. In contrast, our other
learners were at two different stages of their programme of classroom
instruction. As in the case of our study abroad learners (=group 2), the
learners in group 1 had completed 2 years of their university programme of
French studies, whereas the learners in group 3 had completed 3 years. The
study therefore allows an interesting comparison of how the learners’
classroom instruction may differentially impact on their acquisition and use
of the forms concerned, compared to the naturalistic exposure experienced by
our study abroad learners.
All of the learners volunteered to participate in the study, which
involved individual participation in a sociolinguistic interview with the
researcher who demonstrated near-native competence in French. The
interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes, and were subsequently
transcribed into standard orthography following the conventions proposed for
French by Blanche-Benveniste & Jeanjean (1987). The interviews followed
the guidelines proposed by Labov (1984) for the elicitation of natural,
spontaneous speech, based on a suitably adapted network of conversational
modules, which included topics such as hobbies and pastimes, holidays,
university studies, employment, Franco-Irish relations, as well as W. Labov’s
classic ‘Danger of Death’ and ‘Premonitions’ modules. As such, the data
elicitation complement previous studies of tense-aspect development, which

have used a variety of methodologies such as film retells, personal narratives,
and cloze tests. While such methods are explicitly designed to tap into the
learner’s aspectuo-temporal system, the value of the sociolinguistic interview
lies in the fact that it allows for the study of a wide range of conceptual and
linguistic entities through their expression in natural, spontaneous discourse.
Thus, while the data have not been elicited for the sole purpose of the
analysis of the expression of modality, a range of questions relating to the
future and the hypothetical formed a pivotal part of the conversational
modules in the interviews conducted.
The data have previously been used for the study of a range of linguistic
variables, relating to the expression of past time in advanced French
interlanguage, as well as to the expression of number and person (see
Howard 2006a), allowing for an interesting comparison with the variables
under investigation here 8. For the purpose of their analysis, all tokens of the
three variables concerned were extracted from the data. Their analysis will be
outlined in the following section.
4. Data analysis
4.1. Futurity
All morphological forms used for future time reference were extracted from
the data, giving rise to 116 tokens. Future time reference was determined
based on H. Reichenbach’s model, whereby future events involve a relation
of posteriority between the speech time and the event time. In cases where
such a relation was ambiguous, other contextual clues were used to determine
the future time reference of the event, including the use of temporal adverbs
and adverbials, as well as the temporal frame provided by the informant’s
interlocutor.
4.2. The subjunctive
In the case of the subjunctive, the data extraction was determined by the
presence of subjunctive-inducing verbs in the matrix clause as well as
subordinating conjunctions prototypically requiring the subjunctive in native
speaker discourse. The data did not demonstrate use of superlative adjectives
following which the subjunctive might be expected. In all, 100 subjunctive-
inducing contexts were identified, and subsequently coded for (non-)use of
the subjunctive, as well as for verb (ir)regularity whereby the subjunctive
8
Apart from such linguistic variables, the data have also been the source of
analysis in a project on the acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. For an
overview, see Howard (2006b).
212 Martin Howard
form is only salient on irregular forms across all persons, as well as on 1st and
2nd person plural forms of regular verbs.
4.3. The conditional
Finally, the expression of conditionality was investigated by extracting all

verb tokens in main clauses which expressed a hypothetical situation
constrained by a condition marked in the dependent clause. Most often such a
constraint was indicated by the use of si (if). Tokens where the interviewee
was responding to a hypothetical question expressed by the interviewer were
also extracted. Hence, we only considered the modal value of the conditional,
as opposed to its temporal value where a future event is viewed from the
perspective of the past, as in (15):
(15) Marie pensait que François quitterait son boulot
Marie think-IMP that François leave-COND his job
‘Marie thought that François would leave his job’
Similar to the previous markers, all 215 tokens identified were coded for
their morphological form and the actual lexical verb concerned. In cases
where the learners produced a main clause dependent on a si-clause, the
morphological marking of both verbs concerned was also coded with a view
to investigating the type of tense-concordancing that the learners might
engage in across clause types.
Having outlined the study undertaken, we now present the results for the
three groups of learners as previously detailed, namely the classroom learners
of group 1, the study abroad learners of group 2, and the learners in group 3,
who had received a further year’s instruction compared to the learners in the
other groups.
5. Results
Table 1 presents the quantitative use of each form based on a within-category

analysis as opposed to a cross-category analysis. That is to say, the results are
presented based on the relative occurrence of those forms occurring solely
within each category, such as in the case of futurity, as opposed to being
based on the relative occurrence of all forms across categories in relation to
each other. The approach adopted therefore avoids a distributional bias which
across-category analyses are subject to, whereby, for example, subjunctive
contexts as a whole may simply be less frequent than the other contexts. In
the case of conditional contexts, the results are based on use of the
conditional in contexts where this form would be expected. The results for
use of the conditional anterior are based on a separate analysis of its usage in
past conditional contexts. In the case of the subjunctive, we present solely the
occurrence of salient forms, as opposed to those forms which are

homophonous with the indicative.
By presenting the results as a whole, the table allows us to identify
which forms are more or less frequent, while it is possible to identify how
such frequency changes across the groups.
Table 1. Use of future, subjunctive, and conditional forms
Future contexts Subjunctive Conditional
Present Infl. Periphrastic Other Salient Conditional Conditional
Future Future forms forms Anterior
n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gr.1 17 61 8 28 0 0 3 11 1 4.5 32 55 - -
Gr.2 7 27 10 38 8 31 1 4 3 16 38 66 4 44
Gr.3 20 32 29 47 5 8 8 13 5 13 81 74 - -
A first observation concerns the high frequency of use of the present as well
as the conditional in group 1, which contrasts with this group’s non-use of the
periphrastic future and of the conditional anterior, as well as its minimal
realisation of salient subjunctive forms. Occurrence of the inflected future is
a little more robust at 28%.
In the case of group 2, we can similarly observe this group’s very
frequent use of the conditional form, which constitutes the most frequent
form of those studied. Its relative ease of use is also reflected in the
conditional anterior whose rate of use reaches 44%, albeit consisting of just 4
tokens out of a possible 9 where the form could have occurred. While the raw
number of tokens is very low, it is nonetheless notable that neither of the
other two groups produce this form. Concerning the other forms investigated,
we also note that their usage is more robust compared to group 1, particularly
in the case of the inflected and periphrastic future forms, at 38% and 31%
respectively, while the subjunctive remains the least frequent form at just
16%.
By comparing the findings for groups 1 and 2 with those of group 3, we
can see how the classroom instruction that the learners in group 3 have
experienced may have led to differential use of the forms investigated
compared to the naturalistic exposure experienced by the learners in group 2.
In this regard, we observe a number of similarities and differences. Firstly, as
in the case of the other groups, use of the conditional is by far the most
frequent form, which contrasts with the more minimal use of the subjunctive
and the periphrastic future form. In the case of the latter form in particular,
such a tendency is more similar to group 1. However, in contrast to group 1,
group 3 demonstrates much more frequent use of the inflected future form,
exceeding the previously noted frequent use by group 2. In so doing, group 3
also relies much less heavily on the present for future time reference, as is the
case with group 2, but in contrast to group 1.
214 Martin Howard
In summary, while there are a number of similarities as well as

differences across the groups in terms of the relative patterns of occurrence of
the various forms, a common finding concerns the highly frequent use of the
conditional. This is in contrast with the less frequent occurrence of the
inflected future form, across the groups, but in particular in group 1 which
relies on the present to a much greater extent. The difference in levels of use
of the inflected future and conditional forms is all the more curious given the
similarity in terms of their morpho-phonological realisation. With a view to
identifying how such highly frequent use of the conditional might be less
robust under different tense-concordancing conditions, table 2 presents the
level of accuracy in tense-concordancing in si-clauses expressing a truth
value and (non-)realistic hypotheses, as previously exemplified in (6) – (8)
respectively. Given the low number of occurrences of accurate tense-
concordancing in (non-)realistic clauses, we do not present the results
separately for each clause type, but rather as an aggregate.
Table 2. Accuracy of tense-concordancing in conditional clauses
Truth clauses (Non-)realistic Total
(present + present) hypotheses
n % n % n %
Group 1 10 71 4 33 14 54
Group 2 12 86 6 56 18 72
Group 3 7 88 5 45 12 63
The results point to the reasonably solid levels of accuracy achieved by

groups 2 and 3 in their tense-concordancing across si-clauses. This is
especially true in clauses expressing a general truth value, where the present
is required in both the main and subordinate clauses. In contrast, tense-
concordancing poses greater difficulty in marking (non-)realistic hypotheses.
However, we do note that accuracy rates are far higher in the case of groups 2
and 3 than in the case of group 1, suggesting a considerable discrepancy
between group 1’s level of use of the conditional by itself, at 55% as we
previously saw in table 1, and this group’s accuracy of marking (non-)
realistic hypotheses which only reaches 33%. In the case of past conditional
contexts, where the conditional anterior and the pluperfect would be
prescribed, we found just one case of such accurate tense-concordancing in
group 2, pointing to the considerable difficulty that such contexts pose to the
learners.
6. Discussion and conclusions
The study presented aimed to illuminate the acquisition and use of some
lesser investigated TMA forms in L2 French. By adopting a global focus as
opposed to focusing on a specific form or a single functional context such as
the expression of futurity or conditionality, the study reveals some interesting
tendencies behind the relative difficulty of each form, as well as providing

some insights into how learning context may impact on use of each form. It is
in relation to these two points that we will present our discussion of the
results.
Figure 1 provides a useful means of capturing the relative frequency of
use of each form across the groups, based on the results previously presented
in tables 1 and 2. The figure reflects relative tendencies in the use of the
various forms across the groups, and as such, should not be interpreted too
strictly. We do not present the figure as an order of acquisition of the various
forms concerned since, at a metalinguistic level at least, the learners were
quite aware of the forms. However, in view of the relative infrequency of use
of some of the forms by the learners, as opposed to others, a considerable gap
would seem to exist between the learners’ ‘knowledge’ of each form, and
their ability to use the various forms in real time.
Figure 1. Relative frequency of use of each form
Present for future time reference >
Conditional >
Tense-concordancing with si in conditional clauses
(truth clauses > (non-)realistic clauses) >
Inflected future >
Periphrastic future >
Subjunctive >
Conditional anterior >
Tense-concordancing with si in past
conditional clauses
As we have previously noted, the very frequent use of the conditional
across our learners is noteworthy, as is the accuracy of tense-concordancing
in conditional clauses—while truth conditions are relatively easier than
marking of (non-)realistic conditions, as reflected particularly in the case of
our learners in group 1, our other learner-groups demonstrate relatively high
levels of accuracy on both clause types. It is also important to note that the
learners’ use of the conditional is not lexically-restricted to highly frequent
lexicalised forms in the target language, such as in the case of ‘je voudrais’ (I
want), but rather occurs across a range of lexical verbs. Such relative ease of
use of the conditional, as well as the marking of conditionality in general, is
in contrast with the learners’ use of the inflected future form, which, in spite
of its structural similarity to the conditional, is used relatively infrequently.
Rather, the learners seem to rely on the present form at first, before
demonstrating more robust use of the inflected future. The differences in use
of the inflected future form and the conditional may reflect the fact that in the
216 Martin Howard
case of the expression of futurity, the learners have recourse to the present
form which already exists in both their interlanguage and the target language.
In contrast, in marking a hypothetical situation, the conditional is not used
variably with a present form in target language French. However, it is
important to note that the learners’ use of the present in future contexts
cannot necessarily be seen to reflect its status as a futurate present in the
target language; rather the learners may simply be using it as a default marker
of futurity, much as the present constitutes a default marker of past time, in
particular in imperfective contexts, in the acquisition of past time reference—
for discussion see Howard (2005c). Indeed, this form also appears in
conditional contexts when the learners fail to use conditional forms—while
some other forms do also appear in place of the conditional, the present is by
far the most frequent.
Apart from the present and the inflected future forms, the learners rely
much less on the periphrastic future, except in the case of our study abroad
learners. The limited use of the periphrastic future is reflected in the
subjunctive and the conditional anterior, which, taken together, are situated at
the opposite end of the spectrum to the more frequent forms of the
conditional, (default) futurate present, and inflected future 9.
As a whole, figure 1 allows for an interesting overview comparison of
the relative frequency of the forms concerned in relation to other existing
acquisition continua for both L2 French and other L2s. A comparison with
such continua presented in studies like Bartning & Schlyter (2004) for L2
French, as well as Giacalone Ramat (1992) for L2 Italian points to some
differences and similarities with our findings 10. In particular, the very late
acquisition of the subjunctive reported in both studies is reflected in our
learners’ minimal use of the form in contexts where its usage would be
required in target language French. While our learners produce a range of
9
While the conditional anterior does demonstrate a rate of use of 44% in group 2,
we situate this form at the end of the continuum presented in order to reflect the
difficulty that its usage poses to the learners in the other groups which do not
use this form at all.
10
Unlike the acquisition order presented by A. Giacalone Ramat, we do not
include our previous findings for the past tenses, since these are not the focus of
analysis here. Suffice to say that our learners, irrespective of their grouping
here, demonstrated very high levels of accuracy of use on the passé composé
and the imparfait, ranging from 75%-92%, as reported on by Howard (2005b).
While our previous work has illuminated the variation at work in use of such
past time forms, such high levels of accuracy point to their relative ease of use
compared to the forms under analysis here. In sum, such relative stability on
past time marking may be a prerequisite for enhanced development on the forms
presented here, reflecting A. Giacalone Ramat’s findings for L2 Italian, as well
as those of Schlyter (1990) for her Swedish naturalistic learners of French.
those subjunctive-inducing contexts, including both verbs in the matrix

clause, as well as subordinating conjunctions, their use of the subjunctive has
yet to develop beyond its usage following one single verb, ‘falloir’ (must)
which constitutes the only context of subjunctive usage in our data. In this
regard, our findings point to a further similarity to those for Swedish learners,
insofar as Bartning (2003) specifically finds that ‘falloir’ is also the initial
context of subjunctive usage, before it emerges in other contexts.
While such difficulty surrounding subjunctive-usage is reflected in the
acquisition orders presented by Bartning & Schlyter (2004) and Giacalone
Ramat (1992), the relative difficulty posed by the inflected future and
conditional forms differs between our studies. In the case of this study, our
learners’ ease of use of the conditional form, as opposed to their reduced use
of the inflected future form especially in group 1, contrasts with the relatively
earlier acquisition of the inflected future form compared to the conditional,
reported in Giacalone Ramat’s work on L2 Italian. However, it is important
to bear in mind that the differences may reflect an effect for the different
languages concerned.
Another aspect of the relative frequencies presented in figure 1 which
differs from I. Bartning & S. Schlyter’s findings for L2 French concerns the
periphrastic form. Whereas I. Bartning & S. Schlyter report its earlier use
compared to the inflected future form, our findings suggest the reverse
pattern. Our classroom learners’ difficulty in the use of the periphrastic form
also reflects the later emergence of the equivalent form in L2 English, as
reported on by Bardovi-Harlig (2004a) - future forms with ‘will’ are much
earlier to emerge compared to ‘going to’. Since the periphrastic form is only
used with relative frequency among our study abroad learners, it would seem
that our classroom learners rely on the present form first in the expression of
futurity before demonstrating some uses of the inflected future form. In
contrast, use of the periphrastic form is more limited even among our learners
in group 3, unlike their counterparts in group 2. Such differences between our
findings and those of I. Bartning & S. Schlyter may simply reflect an effect
for input conditions; as we have seen, there is a clear difference in use of the
periphrastic form between our study abroad and classroom learners, while the
corpora on which I. Bartning & S. Schlyter’s findings are based include data
from learners in a purely naturalistic context. Since the periphrastic form with
‘aller’ constitutes the more informal variant in sociolinguistic terms, it may
be that those learners, be they Swedish or anglophone, in a naturalistic
environment are simply more sensitive to use of the informal variant,
compared to their counterparts in the foreign language classroom. Indeed, in
the case of our study abroad learners, their relative use of the periphrastic
future and of the inflected future reaches 44% and 56% respectively,
reflecting their relatively equal use in Metropolitan French reported on by
Jeanjean (1988). In the case of our classroom learners, the specificity of their
218 Martin Howard
input exposure may favour the formal variant, namely the inflected form,
whereby classroom learners tend to overuse formal variants at the expense of
informal ones. Such an interpretation is abundantly supported in the literature
on the acquisition of sociolinguistic variation in the L2—see, for example,
Dewaele & Mougeon (2003), Howard (2006b), Rehner et al. (2002).
The positive impact of the naturalistic exposure experienced by our
study abroad learners in group 2 is further reflected in their use of the
conditional anterior which the other groups do not use at all, while they also
demonstrate a higher rate of accuracy on tense-concordancing in conditional
clauses in general, as well as on marking (non-)realistic hypotheses in
particular. However, in contrast with their relatively frequent use of the
periphrastic future and the conditional anterior, the study abroad group does
not demonstrate any advantage in relation to the other forms investigated.
Rather, it is our classroom learners in group 3 who demonstrate an equally
important effect for the classroom instruction they have received: they use
the forms at a level similar to or slightly more frequently than their study
abroad counterparts. This is true for example in their use of the conditional,
as well as the subjunctive, albeit used relatively infrequently overall. The
positive effect for their programme of classroom instruction is also reflected
by the learners in group 3 insofar as they demonstrate considerable progress
compared to their less advanced counterparts in group 1. They rely much less
on the present to mark futurity, while also demonstrating a superior level of
accuracy on tense-concordancing in conditional clauses.
In conclusion, while the effect for learning context, in the case of the
forms concerned here is extremely relative, the results entail important
implications for language pedagogy aimed at advanced learners in the foreign
language classroom. In particular, by illuminating the relative frequency of
use of the various forms, the results indicate areas where the advanced
learner may need to be presented with particular opportunities to productively
use the forms in order to facilitate their more frequent occurrence in the
learners' real time communication than is currently the case, as reflected in
the results presented here.
References
Andersen, R. (1991). Developmental sequences: the emergence of aspect

markers in second language acquisition, in: T. Huebner; C. Ferguson,
(eds), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic
Theory, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 305-324.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics:
tense-aspect research in SLA, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
21: 341-382.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and Aspect in Second Language

Acquisition. Form, Meaning, and Use, Oxford: Blackwell [Language
Learning Monographs].
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point ? Investigating formulaic use
and input in future expression, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
24: 189-198.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2004a). Monopolizing the future: How the go-future
breaks into will’s territory and what it tells us about SLA, Eurosla
Yearbook 4: 177-201.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2004b). The emergence of grammaticalized future
expression in longitudinal production data, in: M. Overstreet; S. Rott; B.
VanPatten; J. Williams, (eds), Form and Meaning in Second Language
Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 115-137.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2005). The future of desire: Lexical futures and modality
in L2 English future expression, in: L. Dekydtspotter; R. Sprouse; A.
Liljestrand, (eds), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to
Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 1-12.
Bartning, I. (1997). L’apprenant dit avancé et son acquisition d’une langue
étrangère. Tour d’horizon et esquisse d’une caractérisation de la variété
avancée, Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère 9: 9-50.
Bartning, I. (2003). “Je ne pense pas que ce soit vrai”—le subjonctif un trait
tardif dans l’acquisition du français L2, in: M. Metzeltin, (éd.),
Hommage à Jane Nystedt, Wien: Drei Eidechsen, 31-49.
Bartning, I. (2009). The advanced learner variety: 10 years later, in: E.
Labeau; F. Myles, (eds), The Advanced Learner Variety: The Case of
French, Frankfurt, Brussels, Oxford, New York, Bern, Wien: Peter
Lang, p.11-40.
Bartning, I.; Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de
développement en français L2, Journal of French Language Studies 14:
281-299.
Bayley, R. (1996). Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult
Chinese learners of English, in: R. Bayley; D. Preston, (eds), Second
Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation, Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 97-120.
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1990). Le français parlé: études grammaticales,
Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Blanche-Benveniste, C.; Jeanjean, C. (1987). Le français parlé:
Transcription et édition, Paris: Didier.
Blondeau, H. (2006). La trajectoire de l’emploi du futur chez une cohorte de
Montréalais francophones entre 1971 et 1995, Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics 9: 73-98.
220 Martin Howard
Collentine, J. (1995). The development of complex syntax and mood-

selection abilities by intermediate-level learners of Spanish, Hispania
78: 122-135.
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive, Hispania
81: 576-587.
Confais, J.-P. (1995). Temps mode aspect: Les approches des morphèmes
verbaux et leurs problèmes à l’exemple du français et de l’allemand,
Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Damourette, J.; Pinchon, E. (1929). Des mots à la pensée: essai de
grammaire de la langue française 1911-1940. 7 vols. Paris: Collection
des linguistes contemporains.
Deshaies, D.; Laforge, E. (1981) Le futur simple et le futur proche dans le
français parlé dans la ville de Québec, Langues et linguistique 7: 23-37.
Dewaele, J.-M.; Mougeon, R. (2003). L’acquisition de la variation par les
apprenants du français langue seconde, Special issue of Acquisition et
interaction en langue étrangère 17.
Dietrich, R.; Klein, W.; Noyau, C. (1995). The Acquisition of Temporality in
a Second Language, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Emirkanian, L.; Sankoff, D. (1985). Le futur simple et le futur périphrastique
dans le français parlé, in: M. Lemieux; H. Cedergren, (eds), Les
tendances dynamiques du français parlé à Montréal, Montreal: Office
de la langue française, 189-204.
Fleischman, S. (1982). The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic
Evidence from Romance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1990). Presentazione del progetto di Pavia
sull’acquisizione di lingue seconde: Lo sviluppo di strutture temporali,
in: G. Bernini; A. Giacalone Ramat, (eds), La temporalità
nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde, Milan: Franco Angeli, 13-38.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1992). Grammaticalization processes in the area of
temporal and modal relations, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
14: 297-322.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1995). L’expression de l’aspect progressif en italien
seconde langue et le rôle des propriétés sémantiques des verbes,
Acquisition et interaction en langue seconde 5: 47-78.
Gougenheim, G. (1971). Etudes sur les périphrases verbales de la langue
française, Paris: A-G Nizet.
Grevisse, M. (1993). Le bon usage, 13th ed., Paris / Louvain-la-Neuve:
Duculot.
Guillaume, G. (1929). Temps et verbe, Paris: Champion.
Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French
immersion, Journal of French Language Studies 2: 159-183.
Housen, A. (2002). The development of tense-aspect in English as a second
language and the variable influence of inherent aspect, in: R. Salaberry;
Y. Shirai, (eds), The L2 Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology,

Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 285-322.
Howard, M. (2002a). Prototypical and non-prototypical marking in the
advanced learner’s aspectuo-temporal system, EuroSLA Yearbook 2: 87-
114.
Howard, M. (2002b). L’acquisition des temps du passé en français par
l’apprenant dit avancé: Une approche lexicale, in: E. Labeau; P.
Larrivée, (éds), Les temps du passé français et leur enseignement,
Amsterdam / Atlanta: Rodopi [Cahiers Chronos 9], 181-204.
Howard, M. (2004). On the interactional effect of linguistic factors in
interlanguage variation. The case of past time marking, International
Review of Applied Linguistics 42: 319-334.
Howard, M. (2005a). The emergence and use of the ‘plus-que-parfait’ in
advanced French interlanguage, in: J.-M. Dewaele, (ed.), Focus on
French as a Foreign Language: Multidisciplinary Perspectives,
Clevedon / Toronto: Multilingual Matters [Second Language
Acquisition Series 10], 63-87.
Howard, M. (2005b). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context:
A comparative investigation of the effects of study abroad and foreign
language instruction on the L2 learner’s grammatical development, in:
A. Housen; M. Pierrard, (eds), Investigations in Instructed Second
Language Acquisition, Berlin / New York: Mouton deGruyter [Studies
on Language Acquisition 25], 495-530.
Howard, M. (2005c). Les emplois marqués et prototypiques de l’imparfait
par l’apprenant du français langue étrangère, in: E. Labeau; P. Larrivée,
(éds), Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait, Amsterdam / Atlanta:
Rodopi [Cahiers Chronos 14], 175-197.
Howard, M. (2006a). The expression of number and person through verb
morphology in French interlanguage, International Review of Applied
Linguistics 44: 1-22.
Howard, M. (2006b). Variation in advanced French interlanguage: A
comparison of three (socio)linguistic variables, Canadian Modern
Language Review / Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 62: 379-400.
Imbs, P. (1953). Le subjonctif en français moderne: Essai de grammaire
descriptive, Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg.
Jeanjean, C. (1988). Le futur simple et le futur périphrastique en français
parlé, in: C. Blanche-Benveniste; A. Cherval; M. Gross, (éds),
Grammaire et histoire de la grammaire: hommage à la mémoire de
Jean Stefanini, Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de
Provence, 235-257.
Kihlstedt, M. (1998). L’acquisition des temps du passé en français par
l’apprenant dit avancé, Stockholm: Akademitryk.
222 Martin Howard
Klein, W. (1986). Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Labeau, E. (2005). Beyond the Aspect Hypothesis. Tense-Aspect Development
in Advanced L2 French, Oxford, Bern, Brussels, Frankfurt am Main,
New York, Wien: Peter Lang.
Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and
variation, in: J. Baugh; W. Scherzer, (eds), Language in Use: Readings
in Sociolinguistics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 28-53.
Laurier, M. (1989). Le subjonctif dans le parler franco-ontarien: un mode en
voie de disparition ?, in: R. Mougeon; E. Beniak, (éds), Le français
parlé hors Québec: Aperçus sociolinguistiques, Quebec: Les Presses de
l’Université Laval, 105-126.
Martin, R. (1983). Pour une logique du sens, Paris: PUF.
Nadasdi, T.; Mougeon, R.; Rehner, K. (2003). Emploi du futur dans le
français parlé des élèves d’immersion française, Journal of French
Language Studies 13: 195-219.
Noyau, C. (1991). La temporalité dans le discours narratif: construction du
récit, construction de la langue, Habilitation Thesis, Paris-VIII.
Poplack, S. (1992). The inherent variability of the French subjunctive, in: C.
Lauefer; T. Morgan, (eds), Theoretical Studies in Romance Linguistics,
Poplack, S. (2001). Variability, frequency and productivity in the irrealis
domain of French, in: J. Bybee; P. Hopper, (eds), Frequency Effects and
Emergent Grammar, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 405-428.
Poplack, S.; Turpin, D. (1999). Does the futur have a future in (Canadian)
French?, Probus 11: 133-164.
Rehner, K.; Mougeon, R.; Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic
variation by advanced FSL learners. The case of nous versus on in
immersion French, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 127-
156.
Salaberry, R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in
classroom L2 Spanish, Applied Linguistics 20: 151-178.
Sand, J. (2003). Le subjonctif revisité, in: M. Birkelund; G. Boysen; P.
Kjaeersgaard, (éds), Aspects de la modalité, Tübingen: Niemeyer,193-
200.
Schlyter, S. (1990). The acquisition of French temporal morphemes in adults
and bilingual children, in: G. Bernini; A. Giacalone Ramat, (eds), La
temporalità nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde, Milan: Franco Angeli,
293-308.
Sundell, L.-G. (1991) Le temps futur en français moderne, Uppsala:
Textgruppen i Uppsala AB.
Swain, M.; Lapkin, S. (1990). Aspects of the sociolinguistic performance of
early and late immersion students, in: R. Scarcella, E. Andersen; S.
Krashen, (eds), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second

Language, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 41-54.
Terrell, T.; Baycroft, B.; Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish
interlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility, in: B. VanPatten; T.
Dvorak; J. Lee, (eds), Foreign Language Learning: A Research
Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23-48.
Véronique, D. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in L2: Insights
from North African learners’ French, in: C. Pfaff, (ed.), First and
Second Language Acquisition Processes, Newbury House: Rowley,
MA, 252-272.
Vet, C. (1993). Conditions d’emploi et interprétation des temps futurs du
français, Verbum 4: 71-84.
Wiberg, E. (2002). Information structure in dialogic future plans. A study of
Italian native speakers and Swedish pre-advanced and advanced learners
of Italian, in: R. Salaberry; Y. Shirai, (eds), The L2 Acquisition of
Tense-Aspect Morphology, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 285-
322.
Winters, M. (1993). On the semantic structure of the French subjunctive, in:
W. Ashby (ed.): Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages,
Zimmer, D. (1994). Ça va tu marcher, ça marchera tu pas, je le sais pas. Le
futur simple et le futur périphrastique dans le français parlé à Montréal,
Langues et linguistique 20: 213-225.

5 384958197913354986

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

5 384958197913354986

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tense, aspect and mood in first and

second language acquisition

Collection dirigée par Carl Vetters (Université du Littoral – Côte d’Opale)

Directeur adjoint: Patrick Caudal (CNRS – Université Paris 7)

Comité de lecture: Anne-Marie Berthonneau (Université de Lille 3)

Ce volume est une réalisation de l’équipe de recherche “HLLI” - EA 4030

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2012

Cover design: Inge Baeten

Le papier sur lequel le présent ouvrage est imprimé remplit les

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of

Emmanuelle Labeau Introduction i-iv

M. Rafael Salaberry Theoretical views on the development 107-129

Time after time… and aspect and mood

The book at a glance

© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): i-iv

The present volume was inspired by the conference Acquisition of Tense –

The linguistic importance of telicity is evident from the wealth of theoretical

© Cahiers Chronos 24 (2012): 1-25.

(4) a. John was painting material ⇒ John painted material

As mentioned above, (a)telic predicates may be defined in terms of two

particular square) cannot go on. In other words, telic predicates have an

(6) P is homogeneous iff ∀x, y(P(x) & (y ⊂ x) → P(y))

The definition in (6) states that a predicate P is homogeneous if and only if

3. Previous acquisition studies

Children counted spatial-temporal events more often than adults in general.

4. Hypotheses and predictions

Based on the theoretical literature on compositional telicity as laid out above,

Hypothesis 1 Telic predicates (=incremental dynamic verb + quantized

This hypothesis renders the prediction that

Prediction 1 Hebrew-speaking adults will reject telic predicates as

It is further hypothesized that

Hypothesis 2 Atelic predicates (= incremental dynamic verb + non-

This renders the prediction that

Prediction 2 Hebrew-speaking adults will accept atelic predicates as

Hypothesis 3 TD school-age children have adultlike knowledge of

This hypothesis renders the following predictions:

Prediction 3 Hebrew-speaking school-age children will reject telic

5. Experiment 1: Compositional telicity

In order to test the predictions above, I designed the following experiment

descriptions of the same incomplete events. The English translation of the

Plural Example: Example:

(15) EXP: Hi [subject], I study at the university, and my teacher gave me

(16) EXP: amarti letara litsboa et haribua

(video-clip is played showing a girl starting to color in a square, but not

EXP: tara asta ma Seamarti la?

Two groups of monolingual Hebrew speakers were tested: 9 adults and 13

5.2. Results and discussion

Figure 1. Acceptance rate of predicates as descriptions of incomplete events (adults)

As predicted, the adults accepted (in)definite singular predicates as

Figure 2. Acceptance rate of predicates as descriptions of incomplete events

This experiment is a loose adaptation of a written Hebrew felicity judgment

b. Definite Unique (appropriate use of definite determiner)

All items are pseudo-randomized and the procedure is as follows: the

Eight TD monolingual Hebrew speaking children aged 9;4 - 12;4 participated

6.2. Results and discussion

knowledge of compositional telicity, knowledge of the mass / count

Figure 3. Acceptance rate of (in)definite determiners in (non)-unique contexts.

(18) Example items from each condition

Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter efronot?

Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter kemax?

Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter niyarot?

Expected target: lasayas.

Stimulus: lemi yesh yoter niyar?