Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cristóbal Lozano Joint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM) Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 1.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Cristóbal Lozano Joint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM) Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Cristóbal Lozano Joint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM) Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 1

2 Current second language acquisition (SLA) research from a formal perspective deals with the role of the interfaces in second language acquisition (SLA). I will discuss the role of the interfaces in the acquisition of word order alternations (Subject-Verb and Verb-Subject) with intransitives (unaccusatives and unergatives) in both L1 English - L2 Spanish and L1 Spanish - L2 English. Experimental and corpus data reveal that unacusativity (lexicon-syntax interface) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the the acceptance and production of postverbal subjects (VS) in SLA, since VS is simultaneously constrained by other interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology). 2 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR

3 3 Pronominals: L1 Eng / Ital: Serratrice 2004, Serratrice & al 2004, Tsimpli et al 2004 L1 Ital / Dutch: Pinto 2006 L1 Ital / Ger: Müller & al 2002 L1 Spa / Eng: Paradis & Navarro 2003 L1 Spa / Eng: Pladevall –Ballester (2010) see also for SV inversion Pronominals: L2 Eng – L1 Spa: Montrul 2004, Satterfield 2003 L2 Eng – L1 Greek/Ital: Tsimpli et al 2004 SV inversion: L2 Eng – L1 Catalan: Helland 2004 Pronominals: L1 Spa: Grinstead 2004 L1 Eng: Chien & Wexler 1990, Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993 Observation: Purely syntactic properties early acquired, native-like knowledge Interface properties (syntax-discourse) residual deficits (e.g., optionality) Context: 2 properties of pro-drop parameter: null subjects and SV inversion E.g., Sorace 2004, White 2009 for overviews Pronominals: L1 Eng – L2 Spa: Al-Kasey & Perez-Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989, Liceras & Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002, 2009, Montrul & Rodriguez- Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux & al 1999, Perez- Leorux & Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987. L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2003, Margaza & Bel 2006 L1 Spa – L2 Eng: Lozano 2009 L1 Eng – L2 Ital: Sorace & Filiaci 2006 L1 Croat – L2 Ital: Kras 2006 L1 Ital – L2 Spa: Bini 1993 L1 Jap – L2 Eng: Polio 1995 SV inversion: L1 Spa – L2 English: Lozano 2006a, Hertel 2003 L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2006b L1 several – L2 Italian: Belletti & Leonini 2004 L1 Quechua – L2 Spa: Camacho 1999 L2 acquisition L1 biling L1 attri L1

4 Theoretical linguistics 80s, 90s: parametric variation 2000s: emphasis on interfaces How syntactic module interfaces with language-internal module (lexicon) and language-external modules (SM and CI). Output generated by computational system has to be interpreted/legible by other cognitive systems. Acquisition: L1, L2, attrition, biling 80s, 90s: parameter (re)setting and access to UG 2000s: deficits at the interfaces, vulnerability, optionality (Sorace & associates). See White 2009 for overview. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 4 Word order alternations (SV/VS) in L2 grammars are ideal to study interface between syntactic and lexical / discursive / phonological modules.

5 5 To discuss role of interfaces in L2 acquisition To briefly assess the explanation of thesyntax before discourse phenomenon. Sorace, Tsimpli, Montrul, etc: Pragmatic deficit: INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS: features at the syntax-discourse interface are more vulnerable than purely syntactic features. Our proposal: Formal (syntactic) features are acquired easily and from early stages in SLA, WHILE pragmatic features are intact: Learners are sensitive to discourse status (topic/focus) BUT are unable to encode it syntactically and thus produce both grammatical and ungrammatical structures syntactic deficit To use converging evidence: corpus vs experimental data. If learners show certain kinds of knowledge or deficits at the interfaces, this should be observed in natural production data and in experimental data. PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH at UAM-UGR since 2006. Cristóbal Lozano and Amaya Mendikoetxea Past and ongoing research

6 6 To characterize the interlanguage of learners of L2 English (L1 Spanish/Italian) by examining their production of VS structures. To (dis)confirm previous research: whether postverbal subjects appear only with a type of intransitives (unaccusatives). BUT previous research has ignored that unaccusativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for postverbal subjects to be produced. We argue that the production of postverbal subjects is constrained at three interfaces: Lexicon-syntax interface: unaccusative hypothesis Syntax-phonology interface: end-weight principle Syntax-discourse interface: end-focus principle To (dis)confirm this both naturalistically (corpus) and experimentally.

7 7 1. Theoretical background The language faculty and interfaces VS Order in English and Romance 2. VS and unaccusativity in previous L2 3. Our research: interfaces and XP-V-S XP-V-S in corpus studies XP-V-S in experimental study 4. Concluding remarks The nature of XP in XP-V-S The use of convergence evidence to study interfaces (corpora vs. experiments)

8 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 8

9 Chomsky´s MP (1995) and later

10 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 10 Unerg: John spokeUnac: Three girls arrived / There arrived three girls (there)

11 11 Fixed SV(O) order VS: Restricted use of postverbal subjects with a subset of unaccs : XP V S: Locative inversion (Inversion structures with an opening loco/temporal adverbial) (6)a. [On one long wall] hung a row of Van Goghs. b. [Then] came the turning point of the match. c. [Within the general waste type shown in these figures] exists a wide variation. [Biber et al. 1999: 912-3] There-constructions (7)a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would embrace her b. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and economic fields c. [There] came a roar of pure delight …. [Biber et al. 1999: 945]

12 12 Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, etc): Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc) [existence and appearance] (8)*There sang four girls at the opera. [ unergative verb] (9) There arrived four girls at the station. [ unaccusative verb] ONLY A SUBSET OF THESE Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al 1999, Birner 1994, etc): Postverbal material tends to be focus (new information), while preverbal material links info to previous discourse (topic): Principle of End-Focus. (10) We have complimentary soft drinks and coffee. Also complimentary is red and white wine. Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc) Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al. 1972): general processing mechanism (reducing processing burden). (11) One Sunday morning the warm sun came up and - pop!- out of the egg came a tiny and very hungry caterpillar. 3 principles operating at 3 interfaces: Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those structures which allow them (unaccusative verbs). Generative linguistics Functional and corpus linguistics

13 13 Postverbal subjects can (apparently) alternate freely with all verb classes – BUT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS. (1)a.Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive). has phoned Mary the president b. Ha hablado Juan.(unergative) has spoken Juan. c. Ha llegado Juan(unaccusative) has arrived Juan

14 14 VS in L1 Spanish/Italian CONSTRAINT 1: Lexicon-syntax: Unaccusative Hypothesis Neutral (non-focus) contexts (1) a. María gritó(unerg)(2) a. # María llegó.(unacc) b. #/Gritó María. b. Llegó María María shoutedMaría arrived.

15 15 A: ¿Quién gritó? Who shouted? B: Gritó María Shouted Maria VS in L1 Spanish/Italian CONSTRAINT 2: Syntax-Discourse (End-Focus) Inversion as focalisation: preverbal subjects are topic (given information) postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004, Zubizarreta 1998)

16 16 Lexicon-syntax interface Unaccusative Hypothesis : Unac VS, Unerg SV Syntax-discourse interface Postverbal subjects in Spanish and Italian are focus but unaccusative VS the subject may (or may not) be focus Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface Heavy subjects show a tendency to be postposed a universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end of a sentence reduces the processing burden (J. Hawkins 1994). [Una mujer] gritó Gritó [una mujer que llevaba un vestido de lentejuelas rojas] Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally, independently of restrictions at the lexicon-syntax interface.

17 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 17

18 18 Well known in previous studies: L2 learners discriminate argument structure of unaccusative vs unergative verbs: With different manifestations of unaccusativity: word order, interpretation of quantifiers, clitic climbing, auxiliary selection, etc. With different L1 – L2 backgrounds (Japanese, Chinese, English, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Arabic, etc) In particular, VS preferred with unaccusatives > unergatives. Learners use this knowledge at lexicon-syntax interface as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars. However: Unaccusativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the production of postverbal subjects in L2 English, as we will see. let´s explore this in more detail

19 19 So, learners are sensitive to unaccusativity hypothesis (lexicon-syntax interface): SV unergs, VS unaccs. Three production studies in L2 Eng support this: Zobl (1989), Rutherford (1989), Oshita (2004) (1) Sometimes comes a good regular wave. (L1 Japanese) (2) On this particular place called G… happened a story which now appears on all Mexican history books…. (L1 Spanish) (3) The bride was very attractive, on her face appeared those two red cheeks… (L1 Arabic) (4)a. …it will happen something exciting.... (L1 Spanish) b. …because in our century have appeared the car and the plane… (L1 Spanish) BUT learners have difficulty in determining the range of appropriate syntactic realizations of the distinction, and this syntactic deficit can persist into near- native levels of proficiency.

20 20 Research on VS in L1 Eng - L2 Italian/Spanish shows L2ers show sensitivity at lex-syntax interface (unaccusativity hypothesis): Unac VS, Unerg SV BUT problems in the integration of syntax-discourse properties L2 learners fail to produce VS in focused contexts or accept VS/SV in equal proportion (optionality) (See, e.g., Belletti & Leonini 2004, Hertel 2003, Lozano 2006a, 2006b, Belletti et al. 2007, Pladevall-Ballester 2010, etc etc) [see White, 2009] In other words, while appropriate L2 syntax is acquired, external constraints on the syntax are acquired late (or not all) [White, 2009] = syntax before discourse hypothesis (Lozano 2006a, 2006b)

21 21 GENERAL HYPOTHESIS: Interface conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding (ungrammatical sentences). H1 [LEXICON]: Lexicon-syntax interface : Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with unergatives) H2 [WEIGHT]: Syntax-PF interface : Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light) H3 [FOCUS]: Syntax-Discourse interface : Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic) Known from previous research Overlooked in previous research Unlike previous L2 studies, a proper analysis of VS structures must take into account not only the properties of V but also the properties of the postverbal S.

22 22 CORPUS STUDY #1 V-S structures in: English natives L1 Spa – L2 Eng

23 23 Production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in L2 English (Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004) L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic/Japanese – L2 English: (1) *…it arrived the day of his departure (L1 Spanish) (2) *And then at last comes the great day.(L1 Spanish) (3) *In every country exist criminals (L1 Spanish) (4) *…after a few minutes arrive the girlfriend with his family too. (L1 Arabic) (5) *Sometimes comes a good regular wave.(L1 Japanese) (6) *…it happened a tragic event.(L1 Italian) Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives). Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live… Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk... Explanation: LEXICON-SYNTAX INTERFACE (Unaccusative Hypothesis)

24 24 ICLE: International Corpus of Learner English Granger S., E. Dagneaux and F. Meunier (2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires deLouvain L1 Spa – L2 Eng L1 Ital – L2 Eng WriCLE: Written Corpus of Learner English; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Rollinson, ODonnell, Mendikoetxea, in progress) L1 Spa – L2 Eng LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of native English Essays, UCL/CECL, Louvain-la Neuve English native speakers

25 25 Corpora: L1 Spa – L2 Eng Eng natives Query software: WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)

26 26 METHOD (1) Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… [TOTAL: 41] Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… [TOTAL: 32] METHOD (1) Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… [TOTAL: 41] Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… [TOTAL: 32] METHOD Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… [TOTAL: 41] Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… [TOTAL: 32]

27 27

28 28 There-insertion: Learners: There exist positive means of earning money. AdvP-insertion: Learners: …and here emerges the problem. Locative inversion: Learners: In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca. * it-insertion: Learners: *In the name of religion it had occurred some important events. * Ø-insertion: Learners: …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation. * XP-insertion: Learners: *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England. GRAMM. UNGRAM.

29 41,4% 15,5% 13,8% 10,4%10,3% 8,6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% *It-insertionLocative inversion XP-insertionThere- insertion AdvP- insertion *Ø-insertion Type of preverbal material Frequency of production (in %) Learners 29 Ungrammatical *it > PP loc > there > *zero

30 30

31 31

32 32 SV: typically LIGHT (Pronoun, D + N) Learners: …but they may appear everywhere. …since the day eventually came… Natives: These debates began over two decades ago. … a great controversy exists over the topic. VS: typically HEAVY (postmodification) Learners:Against this society drama emerged an opposition headed by Oscar Wilde and Bernard Shaw. … exists yet in Spain a group of people who are supposed to be professional soldiers. Natives:With this theory also came the area of quantum mechanics. Thus began the campaign to educate the public on how one contracts aids.

33 33

34 34 XP V unacc S

35 35 VS: FOCUS Learners :The existence of many, and let`s say, miselneous programmes en[c]ourages people to keep watching TV. In Spain we h[a]ve four different channels, and some provinces have their own channels. Furthermore there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid. Natives :Humanity witnessed one of histories (recorded history) most incredible minds at work when Albert Einstien came onto the scene. Although his theory (his and his wife's) was basically scientific in nature, it can and has been applied to all areas of human existence. The theory I'm speaking of is relativity. With this theory also came the area of quantum mechanics. SV: typically TOPIC Learners :I use the Internet … I find windows … if they press on any of these windows … these windows cannot appear because a child could enter easily… Natives : However, Hugo is not prepared … Louis took such exception to Hugo … Hugo came from a bourgeoisie family.

36 36 V S S V UnaccFocus Heavy UnaccTopic Light Interfaces: Lexicon-syntax Syntax-discourse Syntax-phonology Contingency Table

37 37 Are other learners guided by the same 3 interface principles? Another corpus study L1 Italian – L2 Eng vs L1 Spa – L2 Eng L1 Italian – L2 Eng vs L1 Spa – L2 Eng (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008): same results Lexicon-syntax: postverbal subjects appear only with unaccusatives. Syntax-phonology: postverbal subjects tend to be long and complex. Syntax-discourse: postverbal subjects tend to be focus. L1 French – L2 Eng Also: evidence from L1 French – L2 Eng (unpublished results yet).

38 38 Learners of L2 Eng produce VS under same 3 conditions as Eng natives: (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition). So, learners do not show deficits at the external interfaces (syntax- discourse and syntax-phonology) against INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS. Learners show rather a persistent problems in the syntactic encoding of the construction syntactic deficit High production of structurally ungrammatical constructions (it-insertion, Ø- insertion). follow-up study (experiment): What is the nature of this syntactic deficit? What is the nature of the preverbal XP (it, Ø)?

39 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 39

40 Reason for the experiment: To (dis)confirm the corpus data experimentally: Unaccusativity hypothesis: VS with unaccusatives only Nature of preverbal XP element: XP V S To obtain converging evidence from different research methods : corpus vs experiment (Gilquin & Gries 2009)

41 Research method: acceptability test (online) 32 contextualised sentences 4 top inversion unaccusatives in corpus exist, appear, begin, come 4 high frequency unergatives in corpus talk, work play, speak 4 preverbal elements (XP) in corpus *it, *Ø, there, PP CRUCIALLY, these sentences were structurally similar to those produced by L2ers in the corpus data.

42 V1: Verb (unac / unerg) Unacc: n=4 high inversion (inv/totalinv in ICLE+WRICLE) Exist (41.4%) Appear (24%) Begin (8.6%) Come (6.9%) Unerg: n=4 most frequent (conc/totalconcs in ICLE+WRICLE) Talk (35.7%) Work (30.2%) Play (7.7%) Speak (4.4%) V2: preverbal XP *it (n=4) there (n=4) *ø (n=4) PPloc (n=4) 42

43 C1: Info status of postverbal S: focus C2: Weight of postverbal S:heavy between 6 words (median) and 8 words (mean) C3: Word order: VS 43

44 44

45 Unaccusatives Unergatives etc…

46 N=322 L1 Spa – L2 Eng Levels (OPT): A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 RESULTS: experimental vs. corpus When converging evidence: When diverging evidence:

47 Experimental results converge with those obtained in corpus study: XP-V-S is preferred with unac > unerg: UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS converging evidence BUT also interesting divergence due to nature of method? (next slides)

48 UNACCUSATIVES: *IT: it: low rates [corpus: highest rates] decreases as proficiency increases *ZERO: Ø: low rates too [corpus: lowest rates] also decreases as proficiency increases THERE: highly accepted [corpus: mildly accepted] remains rather stable across proficiency (=expected) PP: PP is the preferred option [corpus: rather high too] though it decreases with proficiency (=unexpected) OVERALL: L2ers prefer grammatical (there, PP) to ungrammatical (*it, *zero), though acceptance of *it & *zero is high in beginners and intermediate.

49 EXPER EXPER: CORPUS CORPUS: PP loc invers there there insert. *zero*it PP loc invers. there there insert. *zero

50 Learners are sensitive to UH from outset. BUT they start distinguishing grammatical structures vs ungrammatical structures with unaccusatives only as proficiency increases THOUGH this is persistently problematic: Loc inv / ´there´ inv vs. *it / *zero Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 50

51 UNERGATIVES: Corpus: Interestingly, L2ers also show a similar pattern (though lower) for the different XPs shown with unergatives (=unexpected) *PP > *there > *it > *zero Experimental: no production of VS with unergatives BUT in corpus they tolerate it overextension of unaccusative VS to unerg VS.

52 LEXICON-SYNTAX: L2ers clearly obey Unaccusativity Hypothesis, both experimentally and in natural production, in different L2s: V unac S > V unerg S SYNTAX-DISCOURSE AND SYNTAX-PHON: they are also aware of constraints at these interfaces: V unac S focus/heavy BUT: syntactic encoding of preverbal XP: XP V unac S: ungrammatical structures (*it, *zero) are persistently problematic. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 52

53 53 While Spanish and Italian learners of L2 Eng overuse it insertion and, to a lesser extent, Ø insertion, French learners of L2 Eng correctly produce there insertion. Reason: L1 influence?? French requires overt expletives, Spa/Ital do not. Spa/Ital are sensitive to EPP in Eng (overt material in Spec,IP), but are unable to encode syntactically.

54 54 Production/acceptance of ØVS: possible L1 transfer of EPP since Spa/Ital contain null expletive ?? Previous L2 evicence: +pro-drop (Spa/Ital) learners of –pro-drop (Eng) Obligatory overt referential pronouns acquired early. Obligatory overt expletive pronouns persistently problematic null expletives are produced until late development: In winter, snows a lot in Canada [See White 1986, Phinney 1987; Tsimpli & Roussou, 1991] Prediction: L1 Spa – L2 Eng advanced levels: production/acceptance of (1) VS with a null expletive, but not (2) VS with null referential subject L1 SpanishL2 English (1) pro expl existen problemas exist problems (2)pro llegué ayer arrived yesterday

55 55 Also evidence that L1 Spanish learners also omit expletive it in extraposition structures (examples from Spa ICLE corpus by Hannay & Martínez Caro 2008: 241): Finally must be added that in our days it is necessary for a country to be provided with a good army.. [ICLE-SP-UCM-0013.4] Talking about the rehabilitation is important to consider two points. The first one is … [ICLE-SP-UCM-0018.4] BUT, if so: Why are VS structures restricted to unaccusatives in L2 Eng since in languages like L1 Italian / Spanish we can find VS with all verbs classes? Why are our learners postverbal subject rates relatively low (7.1%)? (they mainly produced grammatical SV (92.9%). Experimental work shows that Spanish natives significantly (and drastically) prefer VS to SV with unaccusatives, yet SV to VS with unergatives (Hertel 2003, Lozano 2003, 2006a). Hence, if L1 transfer was the only reason for the occurrence of VS structures, we would expect our learners to show higher VS rates, which is contrary to fact. All this could be explained by the transfer account, as well as the fact that L1 French learners do not produce Ø-V-S structures.

56 56 It VS shows learners are aware that the subject position must be filled by an overt element in English VS structures [EPP]. BUT despite positive evidence (e.g. there-insertion), it is the preferred expletive. Reason??Unlike there whose primary use is adverbial it is always nominal (Oshita 2004) (1)Mrs Ramsay is dead yet it remains something like a glow [ICLE fruc1046] (2)…and there remains a great deal more to say on the subject [ICLE frub1022] Further evidence: incorrect VS with extraposition: Hannay & Martínez Caro (2008: 241): (3)… In my opinion it is very logic the idea of having voluntary soldiers in the army [ICLE-SP-UCM-004.3] Some authors argue that these constructions are due to transfer: The Spanish learners seem to transfer the postverbal subject of the Spanish construction incorrectly, and once they have done so, they apply the rule of obligatory subject in English by filling in the preverbal slot with dummy it as in extrapositions (Hannay & M. Caró, 2008: 241). BUT: while transfer can explain V-S only, it cannot explain why we have expletive it, nor why it-V-S is more frequent than Ø-V-S.

57 57 There-constructions (as in There remain several problems) are rarely used by L2 learners of pro-drop languages. [Oshita (2004) also notices this fact for Korean and Japanese speakers of L2 English]. Input could be affecting these results due to its low frequency in native English (see Biber et al. 1999). BUT Eexistential there-constructions are introduced early in instructed contexts ( Palacios Martínez and Martínez-Insúa 2006), so they must be high frequency structures in the input and instruction learners receive. Input is a tricky factor, as its role is not fully understood yet in SLA. Also: there-V-S is learned as formulaic or prefabricated chunks with the V be the whole structure is rote-learnt and selected from the lexicon, it is not productive, it is not assembled/merged in the narrow syntax. Thus, there may not be used as an independent expletive until learners reach a very advanced level (Oshita 2004: fn 2).

58 Lexicon-syntax: native-like knowledge (Unacc. Hypothesis) Deficits located in numeration when selecting preverbal element (it, Ø, there) PROCESSING LIMITATION or FEATURE MISREPRESENTATION?? Syntax-phonology: native-like knowledge (Eng-Weight) Syntax-discourse: native-like knowledge (Eng-Focus)

59 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 59

60 60 Less control More control Naturalistic data Exploratory research Corpora Diaries Unstructured interviews Think-aloud Medium degree of control Structured interviews Semi-structured questionnaires Experimental data Hypothesis-testing research Experiments Discrete-point tests Structured questionnaires MANY METHODS for data collection, largely depends on… your research hypotheses. your linguistic paradigm/model (generative grammar, functional grammar, interaction, etc). the degree of control. your subjects/informants. RECOMMENDED READING: Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated. [An excellent monograph on methods to elicit different types of data in SLA] Experimental vs. Corpus L2 data

61 Cyclic process: Unaccusative Hypothesis is tested experimentally (Lozano 2006a, 2006b). Unaccusative hypothesis is tested in natural data, and is refined [unaccusativiy = necessary but not sufficient] and yields new hypotheses and structural patterns. (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010) New experiments are designed to test those hypotheses and the status of those patterns as part of the L2 mental grammar [convergence or divergence]. This will yield new hypotheses to be tested in corpora? 1. EXPER 2. CORPUS 3. EXPER 4. CORPUS? We are here now Real need to use converging evidence on the same lingusitic phenomenon in SLA

62 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 62

63 Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22 (2), 1-43. Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, pp. 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lozano, C. (2008). The Acquisition of Syntax and Discourse: Pronominals and Word Order in English and Greek Learners of Spanish. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, pp. 85-125. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2010). Interface conditions on postverbal subjects: a corpus study of L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4): 475-497. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 63

64 Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76 (1), 28-55. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13 (1), 1-9. Beaman, K. (1984). Co-ordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.), Conversational style, pp. 45-80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Belletti, A. (2001). "Inversion" as focalization. In A. Hulk & J. Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, pp. 60-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the lower IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2), pp- 16-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Belletti, A., & Leonini, C. (2004). Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & O. Mitsuhiko (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 4, pp. 95-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657-689. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70 (2), 233- 259. Birner, B. J. (1995). Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua, 97, 233-256. Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (1993). There-sentences and inversion as distinct constructions: A functional account. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 19, 27-39. Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bolinger, D. (1954). Meaningful word order in Spanish. Boletín de Filología, 7, 45-56. Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman. Bresnan, J. (1994). Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language, 70 (1), 71-131. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89-156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-22. Cole, M. (2000). The syntax, morphology, and semantics of Null Subjects. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Manchester. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 64

65 Culicover, P. W., & Levine, R. D. (2001). Stylistic inversion in English: a reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 283-310. Dijkstra, T. & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197. de Miguel, E. (1993). Construcciones ergativas e inversión en la lengua y la interlengua española. In J. M. Liceras (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, pp. 178- 195. Ottawa: Dovehouse. Domínguez, L. (2004). Mapping focus: The syntax and prosody of focus in Spanish. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Boston University. Eguren, L., & Fernández Soriano, O. (2004). Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos. Epstein, S. D. (1999). Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.) Working minimalism, pp. 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Fernández Soriano, O. (1993). Sobre el orden de palabras en español. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica, 11, 113-151. Frampton, J. & Gutmann, S. (1999). Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2, 1–27. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (eds.) (2002). International Corpus of Learner English (inc. CD ver 1.1). Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism : Language and Cognition 1, 67-81. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19 (4), 273-304. Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of English and Chinese. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language, pp. 89- 114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 65

66 Huang, C.-T.J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574. Ivanov, I. P. (2009). Second language acquisition of Bulgarian object clitics: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Iowa. Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (eds.) (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 85-111. Kaltenböck, G. (2005). It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English: A study of syntax in spoken and written texts. Vienna: Wilhem Braumüller. Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74 (2), 245-273. Klein, W. & C. Perdue (1992). Utterance structure. Developing grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211-258. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liceras, J., Soloaga, B., & Carballo, A. (1994). Los conceptos de tema y rema: problemas sintácticos y estilísticos de la adquisición del español. Hispanic Linguistics, 5 (1-2), 43-88. Lozano, C. (2003). Universal Grammar and focus constraints: The acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Essex. Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22 (2), 1-43. Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, pp. 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 66

67 Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, pp. 85-125. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2009a). It exist(s) many problems: Learner language in learner corpora and the study of SLA. Paper presented at ICAME 30, University of Lancaster, UK. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2009b). Discourse before syntax in non-native grammars: converging evidence. Plenary talk given at Workshop on Interfaces in L2 Acquisition, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal. Margaza, P & Bel, A. (2006). Null Subjects at the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface: Evidence from Spanish Interlanguage of Greek Speakers. Grantham et al (eds) Proceedings of GASLA 2006. Cascadilla Press. Mendikoetxea, A. (2006). Unergatives that become unaccusatives in English locative inversion: a lexical-syntactic approach. In C. Copy and L. Gournay (eds.) Points de vue sur linversion. Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglaise de lÉnonciation, Tome 9, pp-133-155. Paris: Editions Orphys. Mendikoetxea, A., ODonnell, M. and Rollinson, P. (forthcoming). WriCLE: A learner corpus for second language acquisition research. To appear in Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2009 (URL: Meunier F. (2000). A computer corpus linguistics approach to interlanguage grammar: noun phrase complexity in advanced learner writing. Unpublished PhD thesis: Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15 (2), 191-219. Montrul, S. (2004). Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 239-267. Ortega, L. (2000) Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Hawaii at Manoa. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level writing. Applied Linguistics 24 (4): 492-518. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 67

68 Ortega-Santos, I. (2005). On Locative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish. Paper presented at VIII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística del Noroeste, Universidad de Sonora, México. Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16 (4), 293-324. Oshita, H. (2004). Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and second language data. Second Language Research, 20 (2), 95-130. Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description and language teaching: native and learner use of existential there. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 213-231. Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157-189. Berkeley: University of California. Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2010) Child L2 development of syntactic and discourse properties of Spanish subjects, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (2):185-206. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, pp. 223-255. London: Academic Press. Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text, pp. 295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, pp. 281- 337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3), pp. 223-251. New York: Oxford University Press. Rochemont, M. (1986). A Theory of stylistic rules in English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Rutherford, W. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 163-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, M. (2004). Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Downloadable version at: ] Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9 (1), 22-47. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 68

69 Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 130-151. Oxford: Blackwell. Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 143-145. Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, pp. 55-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. (forthcoming). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism. Taboada, M. (1995). Theme markedness in English and Spanish: A systemic-functional approach. Unpublised manuscript: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Torrego, E. (1989). Unergative-Unaccusative Alternations in Spanish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 253-272. Tsimpli, I. & A. Sorace (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax- discourse phenomena. Proceedings of the 30 th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 653-664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Vallduví, E. (1993). The informational component. University of Pennsylvania: IRCS Technical Reports Series. Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 347- 361. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford, California: CSLI. White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: an investigation of the Pro-drop parameter. In V. J. Cook (ed.), experimental approaches to second language acquisition, pp. 55- 72. Oxford: Pergamon Press. White, L. (forthcoming). Grammatical theory: interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Leeds: Emerald. Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37 (2), 275-296. Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 203-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 69

70 Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 70

71 71 Instrument: Contextualised acceptability judgement test Translation

72 72 Lozano (2006a, 2006b): There is no reasons to think that learners are not sensitive to the topic/focus distinction, as it is present in L1 (in fact, it is universal: Vallduví 1993, 1995, Vallduví & Engdahl 1996). Learners are sensitive to discourse status but are unable to encode it syntactically with the pragmatically most adequate word order syntactic deficit In line with findings by Domínguez and Arche (2008): Availability of optional forms can be accounted for by a purely syntactic deficit, probably due to apparently ambiguous input occurs

73 73 Unergatives (SV) Unaccusatives (VS) Convergence with natives (native-like knowledge) sig

74 74 ¿Quién gritó / llegó? Who shouted / arrived? Unergatives (VS) Unaccusatives (VS) Divergence with natives (subtype: optionality) sig n.s. n.s. (just)

75 75

76 76 We used this

77 77 CORPUS STUDY #2 V-S structures in: L1 Spa – L2 Eng L1 Ital – L2 Eng Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In: Gilquin, G., Papp, S., Díez-Bedmar, M.B. (eds). Linking up contrastive and corpus learner research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85-125. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Verb-Subject order in L2 English: new evidence from the ICLE corpus. In: Monroy, R. & Sánchez, A. (eds). 25 años de Lingüística Aplicada en España: Hitos y retos / 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges. Murcia: Editum, pp. 97-113. Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2007). Learner corpora and the acquisition of word order: A study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English. In: Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston, Pernilla Danielsson (eds) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2007, University of Birmingham. [available online]

78 78 Main question: Do learners (with different L1s) produce postverbal subjects under the same conditions as Eng natives do, irrespective of problems with their syntactic enconding (grammaticality)? ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English fixed order is determined by lexico- syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian free order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties.

79 79 Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng; L1 Ital – L2 Eng ICLE (Granger et al. 2002) (Problem: proficiency level?) WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004) Concordance queries can be performed automatically with WordSmith, by targetting specific verbs BUT there is a lot of manual work (filtering out unusable data, coding data in Excel, analysing data in SPSS, etc).

80 80

81 81 Locative inversion: In some places still exist popularly supported death penalty.(L1 Spa) …on the earth lived people which were born-criminal.(L1 Ital) There-insertion: …there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid.(L1 Spa) …there still remains a predominance of men over women. (L1 Ital) AdvP-insertion: Then come the necessity to earn more…(L1 Spa) Later came a world of disorder…(L1 Ital) * it-insertion: *In the name of religion it had occurred many important events …(L1 Spa) *…it still live some farmers who have field and farmhouses.(L1 Ital) * Ø-insertion: …exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.(L1 Spa) …exist factors which, on long term, can predispose human mind to that crime… (L1 Ital) * XP-insertion: …and from this moment begins the avarice.(L1 Spa) [no instances found in Italian corpus] GRAM. UNGRAM.

82 82

83 83

84 84

85 85 SV: typically LIGHT … these people should exist, …(L1 Spa) Violence does exist …(L1 Ital) VS: typically HEAVY …it will not exist a machine or something able to imitate the human imagination (L1 Spa) …emerges the peoples ignorance in having prejudices (L1 Ital)

86 86 Discourse status (topic/focus) has to be measured manually by establishing theoretical criteria and then by checking the context (or even the essay) manually

87 87 VS: FOCUS In the world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no a place for dreaming and imagination. Thanks to science and its consecuences, technology and insdustrialisation, appeared the big factories and the capitalism system. (L1 Spa) It seems impossible, but although we have now reached through technology a high standard of life, we are very pessimists. It seems as progress has stolen our imagination and therefore the love for small things. I can give few examples that such a fact: television is becoming lately the killer of conversation between parents and children; it is almost disappearing the use of writing nice letters to friends, since there is the telephone. (L1 Ital) SV: typically TOPIC The approval of acting of women were something essential. Women started to perform female characters and this contribute to give a sexual and realistic atmosphere. […] Female characters appear with a stronger personality they really love these men. (L1 Spa) The idea of Europe doesnt ignore these differences, but inglobes them, accept them and upon them construct its identity. […] If I think of the concept of Europe I cannot think of anything else that of a whole of different countries, but that all together produce the European identity. The differences have always existed in the Europe and for ages its peoples fought one against the other. (L1 Ital)

88 88 V S S V UnaccFocus Heavy UnaccTopic Light Interfaces: Lexicon-syntax Syntax-discourse Syntax-phonology

89 89 OVERALL PICTURE CORPUS DATA V-S structures in: L1 Spa – L2 Eng L1 Ital – L2 Eng L1 Fre – L2 Eng

90 90

Download ppt "Cristóbal Lozano Joint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM) Cristóbal Lozano, UGR 1."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google