Title Page

ABSTRACT

Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 14

CHAPTER I. Introduction 15

CHAPTER II. Linguistic Competence and Performance 18

2.1. Linguistic Competence and Psycholinguistic Performance 18

2.2. Sources of Poor Performance in Comprehension 23

2.3. Poor Performance and L2 Acquisition Theories 25

2.4. Assessing Competence from Performance Data 26

2.4.1. Deciding the Cut-off Point for Comprehension Data 29

2.4.2. Deciding the Cut-off Point for Production Data 31

2.5. Facilitating Performance and Testing the Presence of Knowledge 35

2.6. Summary of Chapter 2 35

CHAPTER III. Comparing Different Learner Populations 37

3.1. Defining Learner Populations 37

3.2. Grouping Learners by Proficiency 39

3.3. Summary of Chapter 3 41

CHAPTER IV. Korean Scrambled OSV 42

4.1. Competence and Performance: The Korean OSV Pattern 42

4.1.1. Grammar and Processing: Scrambling 43

4.1.2. Grammar and Processing: Case 48

4.2. Previous Acquisition Studies 55

4.3. Methodological Innovations 58

4.3.1. Picture-selection Comprehension Tasks 58

4.3.2. Case-marker Elicitation Production Task 60

4.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses 62

4.5. The Current Study 62

4.5.1. Picture-selection Comprehension Tasks 63

4.5.2. Case-marker-elicitation Production Task 80

4.5.3. Source of Poor Performance of Each Individual in the Baseline Comprehension Task 93

4.5.4. Discussion 97

CHAPTER V. The English Tough Construction 99

5.1. Competence and Performance: The English TC 99

5.1.1. Grammar and Processing: Tough Movement 99

5.1.2. Tough predicates in Korean 103

5.1.3. Acquisition of the English TC by Korean-speaking Learners 105

5.2. Previous Acquisition Studies 107

5.2.1. L1 Acquisition 107

5.2.2. L2 Acquisition 110

5.3. Methodological Innovations 112

5.3.1. TVJT 113

5.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses 115

5.5. The Current Study 116

5.5.1. Participants 116

5.5.2. Materials 118

5.5.3. Results 120

5.6. Discussion 153

CHAPTER VI. General Discussion and Conclusion 155

6.1. Summary of Main Findings 155

6.2. What Obscures Linguistic Knowledge? 156

6.2.1. Learners' Processing Limitations and Low Automaticity 156

6.2.2. Data Treatment and Interpretation 158

6.3. Theoretical Implications 160

6.3.1. Representational Deficit 160

6.3.2. Fundamental Difference 162

6.4. Learnability Problems 163

6.5. Concluding Remarks 167

Appendix 168

Appendix A : Norming Studies for Prosody Manipulation 168

Appendix B : Proficiency Data for the Korean OSV Study 172

Appendix C : Items Used for the Korean OSV study 176

Appendix D : OSV Accuracy on the Two Manipulation Tasks 192

Appendix E : OSV Accuracy vs. SOV Inaccuracy 194

Appendix F : Stimuli for the Case-marker-elicitation Task 196

Appendix G : Analysis of the Closest Korean Equivalent to the English TC 199

Appendix H : List of English Constructions Taught in Secondary Schools in Korea 201

Appendix I : Proficiency Data for the English TC study 206

Appendix J : TVJT Items Used for the English TC study 210

Appendix K : AJT Items Used for the English TC study 230

Appendix L : Cloze Test Used for the English TC study 231

Appendix M : Number of Object Interpretations: English TVJT vs. Korean TVJT 233

References 235

Table 4.1. Participant grouping by proficiency 64

Table 4.2. Testing the presence of TL knowledge (with the comparison-against-chance diagnostic) 74

Table 4.3. Testing the presence of TL knowledge (with the comparison-against-baseline diagnostic) 76

Table 4.4. Subject-markings in Sessions 1 and 2, case-marker elicitation task: KHC 81

Table 4.5. Object-markings in Sessions 1 and 3, case-marker elicitation task: KHC 81

Table 4.6. Subject-markings in Sessions 1 and 2, case-marker elicitation task: cL1ers 82

Table 4.7. Object-markings in Sessions 1 and 3, case-marker elicitation task: cL1ers 82

Table 4.8. Testing the presence of TL knowledge: Subject-marking 89

Table 4.9. Testing the presence of TL knowledge: Object-marking 89

Table 4.10. Individual evaluation: KHC 95

Table 4.11. Individual evaluation: cL1ers 96

Table 5.1. Comparing the English TC and Korean surface equivalents 105

Table 5.2. Participant grouping by proficiency 118

Table 5.3. Testing the presence of TL knowledge (with the comparison-against-chance diagnostic) 145

Table 5.4. Testing the presence of TL knowledge (with the comparison-against-baseline diagnostic) 147

Table 5.5. Testing the presence of TL knowledge (with the comparison-against-baseline diagnostic) 148

 This dissertation looks at the question of whether the source of language learners' poor performance is a deficit in knowledge or a performance problem. Two constructions are examined, both being cases in which learners have been reported to show deficits in linguistic competence: (1) Korean OSV (e.g., Elmo lul Big Bird ka anayo. 'Elmo, Big Bird is hugging.'), where knowledge of both scrambling and case markers is necessary for target performance; (2) the English tough construction (English TC; e.g., The dolli is easy to see ei), where knowledge of tough movement is necessary for target performance (i.e., the object interpretation only). If poor performance (operationalized as chance performance or below) is due to a failure to apply knowledge rather than the absence of knowledge, good performance (i.e., significantly above chance performance) should emerge with the effective manipulation of non grammatical factors to facilitate learners' application of knowledge. I experimentally tested this hypothesis in two studies, employing both (a) sentence internal manipulations and (b) sentence external manipulations. The Korean OSV study collected data from Korean Heritage children (KHC) (n＝31) as well as two groups of native Korean speaking children, a younger group (n＝21) and an older group (n＝23). The English TC study collected data from native Korean speaking adult L2ers of English (n＝49) and native Korean speaking child L2ers of English (n＝30), along with adult native speaker controls (n＝10).

Study 1: Knowledge of scrambling and case in Korean was assessed, first, via picture selection comprehension tasks that (a) manipulated the prosodic salience of case markers and (b) manipulated context to make the direct object a natural scrambled topic, and, second, via a production task eliciting case markers. The results suggested three possible sources of poor performance. Many participants showed good performance only in the manipulation conditions (vs. the baseline condition), suggesting that their poor performance in the baseline condition could be due to a performance problem (e.g., perception failure or a heavy processing load). Some participants showed absence or errors of case in the production task, which suggests that their poor performance could come from a deficit in knowledge of case or from a mapping problem between a Case feature and case morphology.

Study 2: Knowledge of the English TC was assessed via Truth Value Judgment Tasks (TVJTs) that (a) manipulated verb transitivity to make the infinitival object gap more salient or less salient and (b) manipulated context to avoid or strengthen bias toward the (erroneous) subject interpretation. A Korean TVJT was also conducted to find the interpretation tendency for the Korean translation equivalents of the English TC. Comparisons between the Korean and the English TVJT results revealed a strong subject interpretation bias in both languages for lower proficiency adult and child L2ers but only in Korean for higher proficiency adult L2ers, which suggests that L2ers do transfer their L1 subject interpretation but can subsequently unlearn it-despite an (ostensible) absence of negative evidence. However, (most of) the high proficiency adult L2ers still showed (below) chance performance in the error inducing conditions, which suggests that non grammatical factors can conceal knowledge of the English TC that some of them actually have.

The two studies show that poor performance on the part of language learners–here, Heritage learners and L2 learners–is not necessarily due to a deficit in knowledge, which in turn suggests that linguistic competence can be obscured due to performance reasons.

본 연구는 언어학습자들의 목표어 사용 오류가 언어지식(언어능력) 결핍에서 비롯된 문제인지 혹은 언어수행 과정에서 야기되는 문제인지를 탐구한다. 이를 위해, 기존 연구에서 언어지식 결핍의 문제로 다루어져 왔던 다음 두 개의 구문을 살펴본다: (1) 뒤섞기(scrambling)와 격조사(case)지식을 요하는 한국어 OSV구문 (예: 엘모를 빅버드가 안아요), (2) tough이동(tough movement) 지식을 요하는 영어 tough구문 (예: The dolli is easy to see ei). 본 연구의 가설은 다음과 같다: 언어학습자들의 목표어 사용 오류가 언어지식이 아닌 언어수행의 문제라면, 언어수행 요인들을 변화시킴으로써 학습자의 올바른 목표어 사용을 도모할 수 있을 것이다. 가설 검증을 위해, 본 연구는 목표어 구문을 이해하는데 긍정적으로 영향을 미치는 언어수행 요인들이 학습자의 정확한 목표어 사용을 이끌어 내는지를 살펴보았다. 한국어 OSV구문 연구는 미국에서 한국인 부모 밑에서 자란 아이들 31명과 한국에서 자란 한국인 아이들(3-6세 21명; 10-11세 23명)이 참여하였다. 영어 tough구문 연구는 영어를 외국어로 배우는 한국인 어른 학습자 49명과 한국인 아이 학습자 30명을 대상으로 하였다.

연구1: 그림이해 과업과 격조사발화 과업을 통해 뒤섞기(scrambling)와 격조사(case)의 지식을 살펴보았다. 그림이해 과업에서는 다음의 언어수행 요인들이 조작되었다: OSV문장 내 격조사(case)의 소리크기 및 OSV문장의 자연스러운 이해를 도모하는 맥락. 실험 결과는 목표어 사용 오류에 크게 세 가지 이유가 있음을 보여주었다. 많은 학습자들이 목표어 이해를 도모하는 언어수행 조건에서 올바른 목표어 사용 양상을 보였는데, 이는 목표어 사용 오류가 (1)언어수행요인(예: 소리 지각 문제 및 언어 처리 문제)에 기인함을 나타낸다. 일부 학습자는 격조사발화 과업에서 격조사를 사용하지 않거나 오류를 보였는데, 이는 (2)격조사 지식 결핍의 문제 혹은 (3)격조사 자질을 격조사 형태소로 옮기는 과정에서 일어나는 문제로 볼 수 있다.

연구 2: 영어 tough구문의 지식이 진리 판별 과업(Truth-Value Judgment task)을 통해 연구되었다. 진리 판별 과업에서 조작된 언어수행 요인으로는, 첫째, 목적어가 있고 없음을 드러내는 동사, 둘째, 잘못된 해석을 유도하거나 유도하지 않은 맥락이었다. 실험결과, 영어수준이 높은 어른 학습자들을 제외한 모든 학습자들이 영어 tough구문 이해에서 많은 오류를 보였다. 그러나 영어수준이 높은 어른 학습자들도 오류를 유도하도록 조작된 조건에서는 해석 오류를 보였는데, 이는 영어 tough구문에 대한 학습자들의 언어지식이, 언어수행요인에 의해 드러나지 못함을 나타낸다.