1. Introduction

The objective of the present study is to examine the influence of the first language (L1) in learners’ second-language (L2) production of Norwegian adjectival number and gender agreement in attributive and predicative contexts. These structures are present in two of the L1s (Albanian and Arabic), not present in one (Kurdish) and restricted in one (Somali). If there is transfer from the L1, this is expected to affect both attributive and predicative agreement similarly and to affect gender and number agreement similarly. Therefore, attributive and predicative agreement in number and gender is expected in the learners with Albanian and Arabic as L1s, whereas neither should occur in the Kurdish-speaking learners. If the Somali-speaking learners rely on transfer, they will either fall into the first group (use both attributive and predicative agreement) or into the second group (use neither attributive nor predicative agreement) because agreement is optional in their L1, but it occurs in both positions if it is realized.

It is well-known that different languages influence each other in bilingual individuals. There is plenty of evidence for cross-linguistic influence, from foreign accents and the use of loanwords, code-switching and translanguaging to subtle indices such as overextensions of meanings and overuse of specific structures (e.g., Grosjean, 1989; Lemmens & Perrez, 2010; Gardner-Chloros, 2011; Alferink & Gullberg, 2014; Wei, 2018). The concept of cross-linguistic influence or transfer has a long history, as it has been discussed in L2 acquisition research since the field began to take form in the 1950s (Weinreich, 1953; Lado, 1957).

However, it is also a well-known fact that learner language is systematic and develops along a continuum with “predictable paths with predictable stages in the acquisition of a given structure” (VanPatten & Williams, 2015, p. 10). Studies focussing on gradual development tend to find that language grows out of the learners’ communicative needs (Klein, 1986; Klein & Perdue, 1997; Dimroth et al., 2013; Givón, 2018) or from an increasing cognitive maturity that helps learners to deal with the input through operating principles (Andersen, 1984) or the incremental growth of processing prerequisites needed (Pienemann, 1998).

The seemingly contrasting views can be combined if we incorporate a timeline into the picture and take a micro perspective of what the learner is doing. Most theoretical perspectives see a balance between the initial state and the effect of exposure on the target language, but there are many unanswered questions about why and when there is a role for the L1. In his seminal article on transfer, Jarvis (2000) draws attention to the lack of consensus among researchers about the timing of transfer. He points to six different directions found in empirical studies: The role of L1 transfer decreases as the learners become more proficient, the role of transfer increases, it remains constant during the whole process, it decreases towards the end, it increases towards the end or it is constantly fluctuating. Jarvis concludes by saying these inconsistencies “make one wonder whether transfer researchers have truly been investigating the same phenomenon” (p. 247).

One answer to this problem may be that it is the same phenomenon, but there are specific timing demands on different structures. It has proven to be fruitful to decompose linguistic features into minimal factors. In their study on L2 acquisition of Spanish intransitive/inchoative structures, Cabrera and Zubizaretta (2005, p. 39) found that “different L1 grammatical properties are transferred at different levels of L2 proficiency”. Klein (1986, p. 27) argues that “the possibilities for transfer increase as knowledge of the second language increases”. Zobl (1980, p. 43) suggested that “L2 developmental stages (…) activate L1 transfer along a time axis”.

For the structure analysed in this paper, noun phrase agreement, studies have come to different conclusions about transfer. Noun phrase agreement markers are usually acquired rather late in the developmental process. It has been argued that they are acquired so late that when transfer is possible, the level of development is already high (Zobl, 1980, p. 55). However, when the surface agreement forms are broken down into minimal factors, such as number, gender and attributive and predicative positions, they can be analysed one by one and reveal details of a systematic pattern (Bley-Vroman, 1983; Pienemann, 1998; Glahn et al., 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2003; Pallotti & Pelosi, 2008).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we introduce Processability Theory (PT) and the place of transfer in PT. In Section 3, we present the target structure, adjectival agreement in L2 Norwegian, and how it is realized in attributive and predicative positions. In Section 4, we present earlier research on the L2 acquisition of adjectival agreement. In Section 5, we present our own study, data, methodology and results. In Section 6, we discuss the results. In Section 7, we present the discussion and conclusion.

2. Processability Theory (PT)

PT (Pienemann, 1998, 2005, 2015; Pienemann & Håkansson, 1999) is a cognitive L2 theory explaining and predicting the gradual and incremental development of L2 morpho-syntax. The basic premise is that the procedural skills emerge in stages:

The task of acquiring a language includes the acquisition of the procedural skills needed for the processing of the language. It follows from this that the sequence in which the target language (TL; covers both L1 and L2) unfolds in the learner, is determined by the sequence in which processing routines develop that are needed to handle the TL’s components. (Pienemann, 1998, p. 1)

The processing routines refer to Levelt’s (1989) model of sentence generation. This model contains several processing components: The conceptualiser, the formulator and the articulator. PT takes up the grammatical encoding in the formulator. This is where the lemma information is activated, and the conceptual message is translated into grammatical structures. Adult native speakers have automatized processing procedures, which makes it possible to handle communicative situations in real time: Listening to others at the same time as planning and performing own utterances. Learners have to acquire these processing procedures, and PT suggests a stepwise development, with stages in an implicational hierarchy. Each stage provides the processing prerequisites for the next stage, which will be unlocked after the previous one is processable (Pienemann, 1998, 2005, 2015).

To describe the morpho-syntactic stages in the developmental hierarchy, PT uses the grammatical formalism of Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001). Lexical Functional Grammar is a performance grammar, where the unification of features is a central concept (see Bresnan; Falk, 2001). This unification of functional features “allows us to represent together features that belong to a single conceptual part of the syntactic structure even if the features come from several parts in the actual syntactic structure” (Falk, p. 17). This is demonstrated in the Norwegian noun phrase attributive agreement, where article, adjective and noun are marked with gender, number and definiteness and also in predicative agreement where subject and predicative adjective are marked with gender and number. In the latter case, the features come from different parts of the syntactic structure (the subject and the predicate). The development of morpho-syntax progresses through a gradual expansion of feature unification, to be effective first between words, then between phrases, between clauses and finally between sentences. Learners start with words and move into increasingly more complex grammatical structure through stages that are acquired in implicational order. The first stage implies that words are learned and the lexicon is annotated, with forms and meanings and with syntactic categories. In the second stage, when the lexicon is categorized, local affixes can be added. When this is processable, feature unification takes place between words in a phrase (e.g., as attributive agreement). Then the window opens to assignment of sentence functions, and here, the predicative agreement is processable. The last stage of development entails the processing of subordination. Table 1 illustrates the hierarchy of processing procedures, the scope of feature unification exemplified by examples of Norwegian grammar for each stage. The table is ordered from the bottom and up, to illustrate that the stages are based on each other, with one stage as a precondition for the next.

3. Adjectival agreement (attributive, predicative)

Agreement has been defined as a “systematic covariance between a semantic or formal property of one element and a formal property of another” (Steele, 1978, p. 610). This occurs in many of the world’s languages and involves many different phenomena, such as agreement in the noun phrase and agreement between subject and verb. In order for agreement to take place, there must be some controller that determines the features that will be matched by the target (Corbett, 2006). In the type of agreement that we will discuss, the adjectival agreement, the adjective is the target, and the noun is the controller.

Adjectival agreement is realized in gender, number, case and definiteness. Gender is a lexical feature of the noun, and in order to use gender agreement “its value has to be available in the lexicon” (Corbett, 2006, p. 126). In other words, the gender of the noun has to be known for the speaker. If learners do not know the gender, it is hard to assess whether they know agreement or not. There may also be a difference between gender assignment and gender agreement in learner language. For example, if a singular noun of common gender (en bil ‘a car’) is erroneously assigned neuter gender by the learner (et bil) and the adjective agrees in the neuter gender (et gult bil ‘a yellow car’), the learner demonstrates knowledge of gender agreement but not gender assignment (Glahn et al. 2001, p. 397).

Gender is said to be “the most puzzling of the grammatical categories” (Corbett, 1991, p. 1). It seems unnecessary in the sense that it does not seem to mark relevant cognitive distinctions, unlike, for instance, number, which marks uniqueness vs. multitude. This is reflected in the fact that some languages, such as German, display widespread use of gender, while others, such as Finnish, do not feature this category at all. In many languages, gender cannot be read from the form of the noun but has to be found in the agreement; “Genders are classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour of associated words” (Hockett, 1958, p. 231). In other words, languages with gender agreement mark the gender feature on words that stand in syntactic relation with the noun, even if it cannot be seen on the noun itself (Sinnemäki & Di Garbo, 2018).

Adjective inflections are often complex expressions of a fusion of features, such as number, gender, definiteness and case. The marker has to be there but is hard to identify for learners because of the fusion of features; thus, “one form or affix simultaneously encodes gender, case and number” (Dolberg, 2013, p. 123). This is in direct opposition to Andersen’s (1984) proposal about the “one-to-one principle” in learner language, which suggests that learners first go for forms with one function.

Turning to the target language in the current study, Norwegian has a three-gender system, with masculine, feminine and neuter gender. However, in many dialects there is a syncretism between masculine and feminine, and they are treated as one gender, the common gender (Rodina & Westergaard, 2015). Gender is visible on articles and on adjectival inflections with nouns in singular indefinite form.

Adjectives are also inflected for number and definiteness. Number is marked as a suffix on the noun. There is no gender difference in the plural. Definiteness will not be discussed in this paper, but we will examine adjectival inflections in indefinite contexts: Number (singular and plural) and gender (common and neuter). Agreement between adjective and noun is examined in the attributive and the predicative positions. Norwegian adjectives are inflected for gender and number, as illustrated in Table 2.

4. Previous research on the L2 acquisition of adjectival agreement

Interest in the L2 acquisition of adjective agreement is considerable, and there is an extensive body of literature on this topic. We will give overviews of studies focussing on attributive/predicative positions and number/gender and will then present studies on L1 influence.

5. The present study

The study tests two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the production of agreement markers will follow the predictions of PT (Pienemann, 1998). The second hypothesis is that the learners will demonstrate cross-linguistic influence on gender agreement in L2 Norwegian, regardless of their L1. Four research questions have been formulated in order to address the two hypotheses.

1. Is there an implicational order between attributive and predicative agreement in L2 Norwegian, so that the use of attributive agreement is a prerequisite for learners to use predicative agreement?
2. Is there a difference between the marking of number (singular and plural) and the marking of gender agreement (common and neuter)?
3. Does the occurrence of adjective agreement in the L1 affect the marking of adjective agreement marking in the L2?
4. What do the learners do if they do not supply the target-language adjective agreement markers?

6. Results

The results from individual learners were counted and the learners were placed in an implicational table, where a plus (+) implies occurrence of at least two minimal pairs and a minus (–) fewer than two minimal pairs. Table 4 shows the combined results for number and gender agreement in attributive and predicative agreement (For frequency counts, see Appendix A and Appendix B).

7. Discussion and conclusion

This study tested two hypotheses. The first hypothesis concerned whether the L2 acquisition of Norwegian adjective agreement in different positions would follow the predictions of PT (Pienemann, 1998), and the second hypothesis focused on L1 transfer effects. We identified four research questions to investigate these hypotheses. In the discussion of the research questions that follow, we show that the study offered evidence to support the first hypothesis, concerning a stage-wise development according to PT. Because there were no systematic differences between the L1 groups, the results also gave evidence that refuted the second hypotheses about L1 transfer.

The first research question dealt with the issue of an implicational order of attributive and predicative agreement. The result of the analyses showed this to be the case. All participants who produced predicative agreement also produced attributive agreement (with the exception of 6Ar discussed above). This systematic behaviour gives support to the PT predictions about a stage-wise development, where attributive agreement (Stage 3) is a prerequisite for predicative agreement (Stage 4). The same order of development has been found in earlier studies (e.g., Glahn et al., 2001; Lichtman, 2009; Bonilla, 2014) and to a smaller extent in Janik (2016).

The second research question pertained to number and gender agreement. The analyses revealed that no learner used gender agreement without also using number agreement. Gender agreement is assumed to be more complex, since it implies both gender assignment and gender agreement. If the learner assigns the wrong gender, the agreement will be “inappropriate but consistent” (White et al., 2004, p. 121).

The third research question about L1 influence on L2 was answered in the negative. There is no evidence of L1 influence when it comes to the production of adjective agreement. The participants with agreement in their L1 (Albanian and Arabic) did not outperform the others (learners with Kurdish and Somali as their L1s) on agreement markers. All but a single learner (Ar 6) followed the implicational order predicted by PT for attributive and predicative agreement.

The fact that there were more differences between the structures than between the L1 groups demonstrated that the conditions for transfer (intragroup homogeneity and intergroup heterogeneity) suggested by Jarvis (2000), could not be met. Contrary to the results of earlier studies, such as Janik (2016), who found transfer of adjectival agreement from L1 Polish into L2 Norwegian, our learners did not benefit from their L1 grammatical structures when acquiring the L2 Norwegian agreement patterns. How can this be explained? One important difference between our study and the study by Janik is that she (like many others, such as Bartning, 2000, and Dewaele & Veronique, 2001) counted percentages of accuracy, while we looked for learner language contrasts in agreement markings of singular/plural and attributive/predicative.

The fourth research question aimed at finding out what the learners did when they did not supply the target. Bley-Vroman (1983, p. 16) proposed that “attention must be concentrated on the construction of linguistic descriptions of learners’ languages which can illuminate their specific properties and their own logic”. By focussing on the use of morphological markings, we get some insight into learners’ approaches to agreement marking. The gender problems have been interpreted as strategies to use default gender (White et al., 2004; Granfeldt, 2005) or base forms (Glahn et al., 2001). Another suggestion is that learners start with fundamental oppositions (cf. Pallotti & Peloso, 2008). Some of our learners seem to follow that path, by first choosing one form for singular and another form for plural, with no consideration for gender. So, instead of making use of L1 knowledge about gender, the learner picks one contrast at a time, starting with number. Future research may determine whether this is a feasible way to characterize the logic of learner language.