Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages Quotes

“L2 Learners are (55%) affected by their target language and (35%) by their mother tongue. There are both the target language and Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair affixes of the two languages share with each other which enhance the Semantic Transparency of affixes”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Displaying the key elements of L1 and L2 acquisition, O’Neill, R. (1998) assesses that acquiring L2 as children acquire their L1 is a “wishful thinking and… based on a profound misconception about the nature of L2 learning - just as it is a misconception about how L1 acquisition occurs”. Hereinafter, O’Neill, R. (1998) maintains that “the best way to explore the differences between the two processes is to view them side-by-side – in parallel”.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Presenting L2 complex and affixes which share Morphological translation Equivalence with their counterparts in pupils L1, further enhances the semantic transparency of L2 complex words and affixes as well as increases the chances for such words to be acquired analytically.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Knowing root words is a perquisite for L2 learners in recognizing the semantic relationship that words belonging to a word family share with each other. It also assists them in detecting L2 affixes and in acquiring analytically L2 complex words. Presenting a multi-morphemic word to pre-intermediate L2 learners whose root they are not aware of – as pre-intermediate textbooks do - is pointless.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“In brief, as in L1 acquisition, there are two factors which impede the analytical acquisition of complex words to L2 learners, and result in L2 learners’ acquisition of complex words as a unit rather than analytically (as the Lexme-Based Model suggests). The first factor is the overload of pre intermediate L2 learners’ textbooks with multi-morphemic words. Second, there is the insufficient presence of root words in pre intermediate L2 learners’ textbooks.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Another aspect noticed in L1 acquisition is the low acquisition of multi- morphemic words (i. e., complex words composed of three or more morphemes) by preschool age English children. Preschool age English children acquire solely 0.5 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 8% of the vocabulary first grade English children own (Anglin, 1993, 71-79).
First to third grade English children acquire 2 multi-morphemic words per day. Multi-morphemic words constitute 12 % of the third grade English children’s vocabulary. Fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 7.1 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 19% of the fifth grade English children’s vocabulary (1993, 71-79).
The low acquisition rate of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children can be explained in terms of lack of parsability of multi-morphemic words. In his ‘Complexity-Based Ordering’ Model, Hay (2000, 2002) upholds that Level 1 suffixes (usually being Non-neutral suffixes), which occur inside other suffixes, are not parsed out during the processing of a multi-suffixed word by native speakers. Level 2 suffixes (usually being Neutral suffixes), which occur outside another suffix, are parsed out during the processing of multi-suffixes words.
Level 1 suffixes: -al, -an, -ant, -ance, -ary, -ate, -ic, -ify, -ion, -ity, -ive, -ory, -ous, -y, -ity, -ation.
Level 1 prefixes: sub-, de-, in-.
Level 2 suffixes: -able, -age, -en, -er, -ful, -hood, -ish, -ism, -ist, -ize, -ly, -ment, -ness. (Fab, 1988, 531).
Level 2 prefixes: re-, un-, non-.
Obviously, such lack of parsability obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children. A strenuous effort to acquire multi-morphemic words would result in acquisition of such words as a unit (as the Lexeme-Based Model suggests, see Aronoff, 1994), rather than analytically (as argued by Morpheme-Based Model).
Such lack of parsability also obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by pre intermediate L2 learners. The degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 multi-morphemic words share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1 is also lower compared to bi-morphemic words. Consequently, multi-morphemic words will be acquired as a unit rather than analytically by pre intermediate L2 learners. Elementary books designed for pre intermediate L2 learners - in addition to the insertion of root words - should also comprise less multi-morphemic words; perhaps solely or less than 8% of their vocabulary.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Instructions in the structure of L1 compound words which share Morphological Translation Equivalence with their counterparts in the target language would assist pre intermediate L2 learners in transferring knowledge of L1 compound types to comparable types in the target language (Zhang. et. al., 2010). Similar instructions in L1 derivational morphology would also give similar results, although derivational morphology is more complex and more difficult to be transferred.
Teachers should also present the counterparts L2 affixes have in pupils’ L1 (e. g., suffix –able has suffixes baar, -lijk as its counterparts in Deutch language). Presenting the counterpart L2 affixes have in pupils’ L1 makes L2 affixes more detectable in the eyes of L2 learners and assists L2 learners in acquiring L2 affixes.
Most importantly, providing the counterpart L2 suffixes have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of their L1 Suffixes to their counterparts in the target language. In the third chapter we argued that L2 learners own high Knowledge of Syntactic Properties for L2 Suffixes, and, such high Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of L2 Suffixes has been enhanced by Morphological Translation Equivalence L2 suffixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Yet, L2 acquisition of word-formation devices differs from L1 acquisition. As suggested by the ‘Dual Semantic Transparency’, the Semantic Transparency of L2 word-formation morphemes is further enhanced by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. Therefore, L2 word-formation morphemes and complex words that have to be present in elementary books should be those which share Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or Morphological Translation Equivalence with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.
In their article, Bauer & Nation (1993) should have considered the influence pupils’ L1 has on L2 acquisition of L2 affixes. Affixes’ order, suggested by Bauer & Nation (1993), has to be reordered according to the Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence L2 affixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.
When teaching vocabulary, teachers have to provide the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1. Presenting the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring the decomposition capability of L1 complex words to L2 complex words. Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair complex words share with each other assist L2 learners in transferring the information of the L1 complex word to its counterpart in pupils’ L2 (e. g., transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar).”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“We argue that, in addition to affixes’ knowledge, knowledge of the root word is a perquisite in the acquisition of Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship. Schmitt and Meara (1997, 28) also revealed that pre intermediate L2 learners possess higher word association capability for root words they were aware of. Elementary books should be rich in root words.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Examining early acquisition of word-formation devices, we noticed that preschool age English children acquire mostly root words. Root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary. Literal compounds constitute 25% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, and derived words solely 16% (Anglin 1993, 69-72).
Imitating L1 acquisition we may uphold that pre intermediate L2 learners first have to acquire mostly root words during their early stages of L2 acquisition. It is well recognized among the scholars that knowledge of the root word and of affix/es facilitates acquisition of the derivative’s meaning in L2 acquisition. Knowledge of the root and of the affix/es enhances the semantic transparency of the L2 complex word in the eyes of L2 learners: chances for such complex words to be acquired analytically by L2 learners are also increased.
On the other hand, L2 complex words - whose roots and affixes L2 learners are not aware of - do not possess semantic transparency in the eyes of L2 learners. Even, L2 learners may be disposed to acquire such L2 complex words as a unit rather than analytically.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“English children’s vocabulary increases rapidly during the early school years. Anglin (1993, 62) estimated that first grade English children know approximately 10,000 words, third grade pupils know 19,000 words, and fifth grade pupils know 39,000 words. The annual increase in vocabulary is estimated to be 3,000 words from the first to third grade and 10,000 words from the fourth to the fifth grade.
Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) uphold that there is “the ability to utilize morphological relatedness among words (which) puts a student at a distinct advantage in dealing with unfamiliar words”. In a later work, Nagy (1988, 46) acknowledges that: “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. In short, in addition to context, there is awareness of word-formation devices which accounts for such rapid increase in early school age English children’s vocabulary.
Such high vocabulary growth would certainly be of great interest in L2 acquisition. Nakayama, N. (2008) tested the role that explicit teaching of affixes (prefixes) plays in vocabulary learning to pre- and upper-intermediate L2 learners. The participants received instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word during an academic year. L2 learners’ vocabulary was measured in the beginning and in the end of the academic year.
Assisted by the instructions, L2 learners learned easier the new derived words, but, in the end of the academic year they had forgotten the derived words whose meaning they acquired through instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word (2008, 70). In the end, Nakayama, N. (2008, 68) concludes that systematic teaching of prefixes does lead to better retention of the derived word, but only with regard to short-term memory.
On the other hand, it has been estimated that the only the most advanced L2 learners can acquire 3000 words a year (Bauer, L. & Nation, P. 1993); a figure comparable to that of early school age native children acquiring their L1. Hence, word-formation knowledge leads to high vocabulary growth to L2 learners, but solely to the most advanced L2 learners.
We may uphold that word formation devices have to be acquired rather than learned through explixit instructions.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Lardiere, D. (2006) conducted Tyler & Nagy’s (1989) test to Patty; a Chinese speaking who has obtained master degree in USA Universities and has reached near native-like competence in English. In her test Lardiere, D. (2006) analyzed Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of English Suffixes, i. e., Patty’s ability to recognize the part of speech of the derivatives by their suffixes (e. g. aggressive and workable are adjectives).
Comparing Patty’s results with those of Tyler & Nagy (1989), Lardiere, D. (2006) notes that Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of English Suffixes (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the nonce-words test) is higher than that of eighth grade English children, while, on the other hand, her ability to choose the proper real-derived word which suits the given syntactic context (as demonstrated by Patty’s scores in the real-word items test), equalizes that of sixth grade English children.
Apparently, there is Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair derivatives and suffixes of the two languages share with each other which has enhanced Patty’s Knowledge of Syntactic Properties of L2 suffixes, even though her ability in choosing the proper derivational form which suits the given syntactic context has remained equal to that of sixth grade native children. Hence, the variation between L1 and L2 acquisition of Syntactic Properties of Suffixes is caused by L1 influence.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship: represents children’s ability in recognizing that two words share a common word base.In other words, it symbolizes children’s ability in recognizing the semantic relationship that words belonging to a word family share (e. g. argue, argument).
The result of our tests seem to argue that there is no difference in the Knowledge of Lexical Semantic Relationship both English and Albanian pupils possess”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Affected by their L1 Productivity, preschool age English children show a preference for productive word-formation rules (e. g. noun plus noun compounds) of their L1 (Haman et al. 2010, 178). As preschool age English children enlarge their lexicon, they show growing sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns (i. e. compounding) of their L1 (Clark & Berman 1984, 584; Haman et al, 2010, 186). Berko (1958) and Anglin (1993) proved that preschool age English children acquire mostly complex words formed according to productive word-formation patterns (i. e., compound words) of their L1.
Early school age English children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., derived words) during their early school years. Estimating daily vocabulary growth for each word type to first, third, and fifth grade English children, Anglin (1993, 71-72) maintains that in a day early school age English children acquire 9.67 derived words, 3.86 literal compounds, 3.00 root words (i. e., mono-morphemic words), 1.92 inflected words, and 1.57 idioms.
Guided by the same sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns of their L1, preschool age Polish children (whose L1 favors derivation over compounding), show a preference for derivation (i. e. derived words) over compounding during their early acquisition of word-formation devices (Haman et al, 2010, 186).
By the way of analogical reasoning we may assume that, different from early school age English children, early school age Polish children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., compound words) during their early school years. Even, Polish children are presumed to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives during their preschool age, and, by the fifth grade to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“L2 learners do not naturally acquire L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their incapability to unconsciously acquire their L2 linguistic rules - there is their arbitrary, or rather their nonnative-like acquisition of L2 productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules, which impede them from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language, even if they may possess a larger vocabulary compared to pre school age native children.
In other words, there is native children’s’ sensitivity for their L1 productivity, and, L2 learners’ reliance on Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence, resulting in L2 learners’ divergence from the natural order of acquiring L2 productivity, which makes native children look native-like, and impedes intermediate L2 learners from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“The second assumption deduced by Communicative Approaches, that L2 learner will show a similar sensitivity for L2 Productive word-formation patterns (derivation or compounding) with that of native children acquiring their L1 does not hold true.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“In short we may uphold that there is a Dual Semantic Transparency in L2 acquisition. First, as in L1 acquisition, the Semantic Transparency of L2 affixes depends on the whether they are Neutral or Non-neutral suffixes. Second, there is Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 complex words and affixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1 which further enhances the Semantic Transparency of L2 affixes in the eyes of L2 learners.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Hence, L2 learners easily detect the L2 stem when its counterpart is a stem in pupils L1, or, in other words, when the counterpart of the L2 derived word is a derived word in pupils’ L1 which L2 learners can decompose.
We may also uphold that the transfer of decomposition capability of L1 derivatives to L2 derivatives is more evident when the pair derivatives of the two languages share Morphological Translation Equivalence (i. e., when the pair roots and affixes of the two languages share Translation Equivalence and the same rule for their combinations applies in both languages). On the other hand, L2 learners are presumed to be less likely to decompose the L2 derivative when its counterpart is not a derived word in pupils’ L1.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“As a result, different from preschool age English children, who are assumed to acquire solely Neutral suffixes during their early acquisition of word-formation devices (Tyler & Nagy 1989), pre intermediate L2 learners, whose Semantic Transparency and Formal Simplicity is additionally enhanced by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 derivatives and suffixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1, acquire both Neutral and Non-neutral suffixes.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Lowie (1998, 108) upholds that: “a lower degree of simplicity in the L2 does not necessarily imply greater difficulty for the L2 learner: if a very similar affix type occurs in the L2 learner’s native language, no difficulty may be experienced in the acquisition and use of this type. In other words, phonological change is not necessarily a factor of difficulty for L2 learners” (Lowie, W. 1998, 108).”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“The principles through which Cross-linguistic Influence affects L2 acquisition of word-formation devices to pre intermediate L2 learners: Orthographic and Phonological Overlap, and Morphological Translation Equivalence.
Orthographic and Phonological Overlap: Rather than affixes possessing Semantic Transparency, like agentive suffixes -er, acquired early by English children acquiring their L1, L2 learners acquire more easily those L2 affixes which are identical in their Orthographic and Phonological components with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.
Morphological Translation Equivalence: Roots and affixes forming L2 complex words may share Translation Equivalence with their counterparts (i. e. roots and affixes) forming their homologous complex word in pupils’ L1. The root and the suffix of the English derived word readable share Translation Equivalence with the root and suffix forming the derived Dutch word leesbaar. Besides, the same word-formation rule is applied to both of these derived words (e. g. transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar); which suggests that such pair derivatives of the two languages share both Morphological and Translation Equivalence.
Studying the acquisition of English affixes at pre intermediate Spanish speaking English learning pupils, Balteiro, I. (2011, 31) brings to a close that, first, L2 “learners acquire and learn more easily (1) those lexical items whose prefixes are either identical or at least similar to those in the mother tongue”, and, second, assesses that “(2) the learners’ native language plays an important role in the study of L2 morphology, as it is often used as a starting point to form similar derived units in the L2” (2011, 32).”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Denying Cross-linguistic Influence, Communicative Approaches seem to surmise that, as in L1 acquisition, L2 word-formation morphemes possessing Semantic Transparency and Productivity will be acquired early by pre intermediate L2 learners, and even may be the sole morpheme pre intermediate L2 learners acquire; which, as we shall demonstrate, is not necessarily the case for pre intermediate L2 learners.
A second assumption we deduce from Communicative Approaches is that, as in L1 acquisition, L2 learners will show a similar sensitivity for L2 productive word-formation rules and patterns (e. g. noun-noun compounds, compounding in general etc.) with that of English children acquiring their L1; which, as we shall argue below, is not in all occasions true for pre intermediate L2 learners.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Productivity: A morpheme (affix) is considered to be productive when it combines with different stems, hence, to be frequently used in the adults’ speech possessing a high degree of activation. Children have the competence to acquire and use the morphemes most frequently used in the adult’s speech. When they identify that the suffix –er has a high level of activation, hence, a high productivity degree, they acquire and use this suffix (1984, 548). We may also uphold that there is their high occurrence in children’s natural environment which increases children’s familiarity with such morphemes.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Formal Simplicity: This principle stands for complex words with simple combination of morphemes (car-smoke, wagon-puller) (Clark & Berman, 1984, 548). Derived words, in which affixation causes no shift in stress, are also acquired early by preschool age children (e. g. Neutral suffixed words).”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Semantic Transparency: Children acquire early complex words which are based on roots they already know (sky-car, baby-bottle, to flag, to dust, brusher, hider). English-speaking children acquire early noun plus noun compounds (toothpaste, football), and compounds having head noun as –man (mailman, milkman, corresponding with batman, spiderman).”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“The Communicative Approaches (the focus on meaning approaches) uphold that adults acquire their L2 through “subconscious learning process that allow them to pick up language ‘naturally’, as in the first language acquisition’’ (Markee 1996, 25). According to this view, the mastery of grammar (i. e. word-formation devices) comes naturally, through extended exposure to the target language (L2), similar to the way children become aware of word-formation’s devices of their mother tongue (L1).
In contrast, Ullman, M. T. (2001, 1) upholds that “linguistic forms whose grammatical computation depends upon procedural memory in L1 are posited to be largely dependent upon declarative/lexical memory in L2”. In short, L2 learners have a limited acquisition capacity of linguistic forms (word-formation rules) compared to native children (Clahsen 2006; Ullman, M. T. 2001). The implication here is that L2 learners acquire L2 complex words as a unit rather than analytically.
Yet, there is Cross-linguistic influence which affects L2 learners’ linguistic development and performance. Though, Cross-linguistic influence is both positively and negatively. Pre intermediate L2 learners are assisted by positive Cross-linguistic influence in their acquisition of L2 word-formation devices. On the other hand, Cross-linguistic influence diverts L2 learners from the natural order of acquiring L2 word-formation devices; impeding them in attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“A five years old child may be aware of only 2 members for each word family he knows; perhaps one is the root word (i. e., mono-morphemic words) and the other is the complex one. Accordingly, Anglin (1993, 69-72) sustains that root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, whereas compound and derived words together constitute 41% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“The annual rate of vocabulary growth is high to early school age English children. From Anglin (1993, 62) data we may appraise that first to third grade English children acquire 3,000 words per year, and that fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 10,000 words per year. We may assess that the early school years mark a rapid development in English children’s vocabulary.
There is word-formation knowledge which assists early school age English children in such rapid enlargement of their vocabulary (Fowler, et. al., 2003; Nagy & Anderson 1984; Nagy, 1984; White, et. al., 1989; Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Calculating the number of members for each word family present in the textbooks used in elementary schools, Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) expose that there are 6.88 members for each word family. Reasonably, Nagy (1988, 46) concludes that “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”.
Certainly such high vocabulary growth is of great interest in L2 acquisition, though, it has been estimated that only the most advanced L2 learners acquire 3,000 words a year. The fourth chapter offers suggestion over the way advanced L2 learners’ acquisition of word-formation devices of their target language may be improved. Doing so, the chapter uses inferences drawn from both L1 and L2 acquisition.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“Semantic Transparency of L2 word-formation morphemes is enhanced by L2 itself (i. e., by Semantic Transparency, Formal Simplicity and Productivity degree they own in pupils’ L2), and, second, by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by the degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence

“The natural order of acquiring affixes also differs in L2 acquisition. Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000) tried to establish affixes’ acquisition order to Japan speaking English learners. They uphold that the factors responsible for the order are: “loan words, instruction, frequency of affixes, frequency of words that contain a particular affix, and the polyfunctional nature of affixes” (2000, 1). Obviously, the effect that ‘loan words’ have on the L2 affixes’ acquisition order is inconsistent with what Extended Level Ordering Hypothesis argues.
Danilovic et. al., (2013) tested the order established by Mochizuki and Aizawa (2000). Testing Serbian speaking English learners, the authors conclude that the “order differed for Japanese and Serbian learners” (Danilovic. J. et. al., 2013). Both authors acknowledge that there is the L1 influence which affects affixes’ acquisition order to both Serbian and Japanese students. Further, there is the difference between Serbia and Japanese languages which transforms the order in which Serbia and Japanese learners acquire affixes of the target language.”
― Endri Shqerra, Acquisition of Word Formation Devices in First & Second Languages: Morphological Cross-linguistic Influence