Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Acquisition of ECM Jeanne Heil. Different or not different? (1) John seems to be honest (2) John wants to be honest (3a) The cat is out of the bag.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Acquisition of ECM Jeanne Heil. Different or not different? (1) John seems to be honest (2) John wants to be honest (3a) The cat is out of the bag."— Presentation transcript:

1 The Acquisition of ECM Jeanne Heil

2 Different or not different? (1) John seems to be honest (2) John wants to be honest (3a) The cat is out of the bag (3b) The cat seems to be out of the bag (3c) The cat wants to be out of the bag

3 Raising (1) John seems [ t i to be honest] (3a) The cat seems [ t i to be out of the bag] (Movement)

4 Classic Control (2) John wants [PRO to be honest] (3b) The cat wants [PRO to be honest] (No movement)

5 Movement Theory of Control (Hornstein 1999) (3a) The cat seems [ t i to be out of the bag] (Raising Verb) (3b) The cat wants [ t i to be out of the bag] (Control Verb)

6 Raising to Object and Object Control (4) John believes Mary to be honest (5) John persuades Mary to be honest (4) John believes Mary i [t i to be honest] (5) John persuades Mary i [PRO to be honest] (Classic Control) or (5) John persuades Mary i [t i to be honest] (Movement Control) We often call Raising to Object by another name: ECM

7 Spanish (6a) Te recomiendo venir(Classic Object Control) (6b)Te recomiendo [PRO venir] to you I recommend PRO to come (7a) *Te creo venir.(Raising to Object) (7b) *Te creo [ t i venir] to you I believe t to come (8) ?Te recomiendo [ t i venir](Object Control Movement Theory)

8 SLA Research of Raising to Object Only done with other Raising and Control constructions Only done from nativist viewpoint (Lakshmanan 1993, Landau & Thorton 2009) So… I examine only Raising to object (ECM) and object Control I will consider a non-UG factor: awareness For the sake of the null hypothesis, I will assume Full Transfer/Full Access (Schwartz and Sprouse 1996)

9 Previous Research (UG Framework) Child L2 learners of English (L1 Spanish) do not initially show evidence of Raising to Object in their interlanguage (Lakshmanan 1993, Landau & Thorton 2009) Lakshmanan: I want [ C to he come] Landau & Thorton: I want [ CP he go away] Effect for Proficiency in both studies

10 Awareness Awareness as advanced stage of attention (Robinson 1997) Debriefing Questionnaire used to determine if learners: Had noticed rules Were looking for rules Could verbalize rules Increased Awareness accompanied superior learning Skill Acquisition Theory: (DeKeyser 1997) Declarative vs. Procedural Strong Interface Position Declarative (aware) becomes Procedural (automatized)

11 Research Questions Q1. Will advanced L2 learners of English (L1 Spanish) have acquired Raising to object: Effect for Proficiency? Q2 Will learners that show a greater awareness outperform those learners with lower awareness? Effect for Awareness?

12 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The Movement Theory of Control is wrong Consequently Raising to Object Object Control L2 learners do not behave like native speakers Hypothesis 2: The Movement Theory of Control is right Consequently Raising to Object = Object Control L2 learners do behave like native speakers

13 Participants Participants were 9 L2 English L1 Spanish speakers Control group of 10 monolingual English speakers Participants were all at advanced level Within the advanced level there were two groups: Low Advanced High Advanced

14 Methodology LEAP (language exposure and proficiency) questionnaire Self-Ratings Years in language contexts Age of acquisition (start, proficient) of English Elicited Imitation task Timed oral judgment task Correction sheet for judgment task Exit Questionnaire (Awareness)

15 Results ANOVA IV Grammaticality Awareness Proficiency Dependent variable = Score There were main effects for grammaticality and awareness

16 Awareness Control group was significantly different from Low and High Awareness, but not from Medium Awareness Low and High Awareness were not significantly different from each other U-shaped (learn a structure, improve, over-apply rule)

17 Proficiency No statistical significance for proficiency. Behaviorally Control looks different from Low Advanced Proficiency for Ungrammatical tokens

18 Discussion Main effect for awareness Behavioral (not statistical) effect for proficiency RQ 1 (proficiency) Hypothesis 1 not statistically supported: The Movement Theory of Control is wrong and learners will not behave like native speakers (Raising to Object Object Control) Hypothesis 2 supported: The Movement Theory of Control is right and learners behave like native speakers (Raising to Object = Object Control) Research Question 2 Yes, effect for awareness

19 Future Study Since the groups were small, I want to repeat as a full- scale study I expect to see a main effect for proficiency, especially with a wider range of proficiencies With lower proficiency speakers, awareness may have less of an effect

20 Works Cited DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1), Lakshmanan, U. (1993). "The boy for the cookie"-some evidence for the nonviolation of the case filter in child second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 3(1), Landau, I., & Thornton, R. (2009). Precocious Control. Forthcoming. Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12,


Download ppt "The Acquisition of ECM Jeanne Heil. Different or not different? (1) John seems to be honest (2) John wants to be honest (3a) The cat is out of the bag."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google