CHALLENGES IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

The three studies in this dissertation bring together quantitative and qualitative methods in order to understand L2 learning of derivational morphology. By using measures of derivational knowledge developed from L1 research, Study 1 provides a foundation for in-class research by assessing what L2 learners know and do not know about derivational morphology in comparison to adult native English speakers and how factors such as L1 background and L2 proficiency shape L2 knowledge of derivational morphology. Results show that L2 learners have poor knowledge of derivational morphology regardless of L1 background or L2 proficiency.Study 2 follows from these results and investigates the effects of input-processing versus pushed output instruction on the development of productive and receptive morphological abilities. The results of this study support the hypothesis that instruction is beneficial for L2 derivational learning; however, results do not support the hypothesis that pushed output instruction leads to better immediate and long-term learning than the input-processing condition. In fact, results suggest that equivalent learning occurs between the two conditions across all measures of derivational knowledge.Finally, Study 3 was a qualitative investigation of learners' attitudes, actions, and motivations towards the learning of derivational morphology over the course of Study 2. Using activity theory, this study describes how students' initial actions, which were not aligned with the goal of morphological learning, were transformed over the course of the study as students came to realize the importance of derivational morphology for their success in English. The results of this study are also important because they offer an alternative explanation for why the hypotheses in Study 2 regarding the effectiveness of output were not supported. Specifically, many participants in this study became aware of derivational morphology for the first time as a result of this study; therefore, a "novelty effect" (cf. Tulving & Kroll, 1995) may have overridden any potential benefit of the output treatment over the input treatment