Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Week 5b. Transfer and the “initial state” for L2a CAS LX 500A1 Topics in Linguistics: Language Acquisition.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Week 5b. Transfer and the “initial state” for L2a CAS LX 500A1 Topics in Linguistics: Language Acquisition."— Presentation transcript:

1 Week 5b. Transfer and the “initial state” for L2a CAS LX 500A1 Topics in Linguistics: Language Acquisition

2 “UG in L2A” so far UG principles UG principles (Subjacency, Binding Theory) (Subjacency, Binding Theory) UG parameters of variation UG parameters of variation (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding domains, null subject, V  T) (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding domains, null subject, V  T) Justified in large part on the basis of L1. Justified in large part on the basis of L1. the complexity of language the complexity of language the paucity of useful data the paucity of useful data the uniform success and speed of L1’ers acquiring language. the uniform success and speed of L1’ers acquiring language.

3 “UG in L2A” so far To what extent is UG still involved in L2A? To what extent is UG still involved in L2A? Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of systematicity, complexity which also seems to be more than the linguistic input could motivate. Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of systematicity, complexity which also seems to be more than the linguistic input could motivate. The question then: Is this systematicity “left over” (transferred) from the existing L1, where we know the systematicity exists already? Or is L2A also building up a new system like L1A? The question then: Is this systematicity “left over” (transferred) from the existing L1, where we know the systematicity exists already? Or is L2A also building up a new system like L1A? We’ve seen that universal principles which operated in L1 seem to still operate in L2 (e.g., ECP and Japanese case markers). We’ve seen that universal principles which operated in L1 seem to still operate in L2 (e.g., ECP and Japanese case markers).

4 Initial state: 3 options The L1 (parameter settings) The L1 (parameter settings) Schwartz & Sprouse (1996) “Full Transfer/Full Access” Schwartz & Sprouse (1996) “Full Transfer/Full Access” Parts of the L1 (certain parameter settings) Parts of the L1 (certain parameter settings) Eubank (1993/4) “Valueless Features Hypothesis” Eubank (1993/4) “Valueless Features Hypothesis” Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994) “Minimal trees” Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994) “Minimal trees” Clean slate (UG defaults) Clean slate (UG defaults) Epstein et. al (1996) Epstein et. al (1996) Platzack (1996) “Initial Hypothesis of Syntax” Platzack (1996) “Initial Hypothesis of Syntax”

5 Vainikka & Young-Scholten V&YS propose that phrase structure is built up from just a VP all the way up to a full clause. V&YS propose that phrase structure is built up from just a VP all the way up to a full clause. Similar to Radford’s L1 proposal except that there is an order of acquisition even past the VP (i.e., IP before CP). Also similar to Rizzi’s L1 “truncation” proposal. And of course, basically the same as Vainikka’s L1 tree building proposal. Similar to Radford’s L1 proposal except that there is an order of acquisition even past the VP (i.e., IP before CP). Also similar to Rizzi’s L1 “truncation” proposal. And of course, basically the same as Vainikka’s L1 tree building proposal. V&YS propose that both L1A and L2A involve this sort of “tree building.” V&YS propose that both L1A and L2A involve this sort of “tree building.”

6 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A An adult clause, where kids end up. An adult clause, where kids end up. The subject pronoun is in nominative case (I, he, they), a case form reserved for SpecAgrP in finite clauses (cf. me, him, them or my, his, …). The subject pronoun is in nominative case (I, he, they), a case form reserved for SpecAgrP in finite clauses (cf. me, him, them or my, his, …). Agr AgrP C C CP that she DP T T TP VDP V VP will eat lunch

7 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A Very early on, kids are observed to use non- nominative subjects almost all the time (90%) like: Very early on, kids are observed to use non- nominative subjects almost all the time (90%) like: My make a house My make a house Nina (2;0) Nina (2;0) The fact that the subject is non-nominative can be taken as an indication that it isn’t in SpecAgrP. The fact that the subject is non-nominative can be taken as an indication that it isn’t in SpecAgrP. Agr AgrP C C CP that she DP T T TP VDP V VP will eat lunch

8 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A Vainikka’s proposal was that children who do this are in a VP stage, where their entire syntactic representation of a sentence consists of a verb phrase. Vainikka’s proposal was that children who do this are in a VP stage, where their entire syntactic representation of a sentence consists of a verb phrase. my DP V V VP make a house

9 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A As children get older, they start using nominative subjects As children get older, they start using nominative subjects I color me I color me Nina (2;1) Nina (2;1) But interestingly, they do not use nominative subjects in wh- questions But interestingly, they do not use nominative subjects in wh- questions Know what my making? Know what my making? Nina (2;4) Nina (2;4) Agr AgrP I DP T T TP VDP V VP color me

10 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A I color me I color me Nina (2;1) Nina (2;1) The nominative subject tells us that the kid has at least AgrP in their structure. The nominative subject tells us that the kid has at least AgrP in their structure. Know what my making? Know what my making? Nina (2;4) Nina (2;4) Normally wh-movement implies a CP (wh-words are supposed to move into SpecCP). Normally wh-movement implies a CP (wh-words are supposed to move into SpecCP). Agr AgrP I DP T T TP VDP V VP color me

11 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A Know what my making? Know what my making? Nina (2;4) Nina (2;4) However, if there is no CP, Vainikka hypothesizes that the wh-word goes to the highest specifier it can go to—SpecAgrP. Which means that the subject can’t be there, and hence can’t be nominative. However, if there is no CP, Vainikka hypothesizes that the wh-word goes to the highest specifier it can go to—SpecAgrP. Which means that the subject can’t be there, and hence can’t be nominative. Agr AgrP my DP T T TP V DP i V VP making what titi

12 Vainikka (1993/4), L1A Finally, kids reach a stage where the whole tree is there and they use all nominative subjects, even in wh-questions. Finally, kids reach a stage where the whole tree is there and they use all nominative subjects, even in wh-questions. Agr AgrP C C CP that she DP T T TP VDP V VP will eat lunch

13 Vainikka (1993/4) So, to summarize the L1A proposal: Acquisition goes in (syntactically identifiable stages). Those stages correspond to ever-greater articulation of the tree. So, to summarize the L1A proposal: Acquisition goes in (syntactically identifiable stages). Those stages correspond to ever-greater articulation of the tree. VP stage: VP stage: No nominative subjects, no wh-questions. No nominative subjects, no wh-questions. AgrP stage: AgrP stage: Nominative subjects except in wh-questions. Nominative subjects except in wh-questions. CP stage: CP stage: Nominative subjects and wh-questions. Nominative subjects and wh-questions.

14 Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s primary claims about L2A Vainikka & Young-Scholten take this idea and propose that it also characterizes L2A… That is… Vainikka & Young-Scholten take this idea and propose that it also characterizes L2A… That is… L2A takes place in stages, grammars which successively replace each other (perhaps after a period of competition). L2A takes place in stages, grammars which successively replace each other (perhaps after a period of competition). The stages correspond to the “height” of the clausal structure. The stages correspond to the “height” of the clausal structure.

15 Vainikka & Young-Scholten V&YS claim that L2 phrase structure initially has no functional projections, and so as a consequence the only information that can be transferred from L1 at the initial state is that information associated with lexical categories (specifically, headedness). No parameters tied to functional projections (e.g., V->T) are transferred. V&YS claim that L2 phrase structure initially has no functional projections, and so as a consequence the only information that can be transferred from L1 at the initial state is that information associated with lexical categories (specifically, headedness). No parameters tied to functional projections (e.g., V->T) are transferred.

16 V&YS—headedness transfer Cross-sectional: 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish. Longitudinal: 1 Spanish, 4 Italian. Cross-sectional: 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish. Longitudinal: 1 Spanish, 4 Italian. In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce sentences in which the headedness matches their L1 and not German. In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce sentences in which the headedness matches their L1 and not German. L1L1 head% head-final VPs in L2 Korean/Turkishfinal98 Italian/Spanish (I)initial19 Italian/Spanish (II)initial64

17 V&YS—headedness transfer VP-i: L1 value transferred for head-parameter, trees truncated at VP. VP-ii: L2 value adopted for head-parameter, trees still truncated at VP NLVPsV-initialV-final BongiovanniI2013 (65%)7 SalvatoreI4435 (80%)9 JoseS2015 (75%)5 RosalindaS2424 (100%)0 AntonioS (71%) JoseS (38%) LinaI24717 (71%) SalvatoreI25619 (76%)

18 Predictions Different parts of the tree have different properties associated with them, and we want to think about what we would predict we’d see (if Vainikka & Young-Scholten are right) at the various stages. Different parts of the tree have different properties associated with them, and we want to think about what we would predict we’d see (if Vainikka & Young-Scholten are right) at the various stages. Agr AgrP C C CP DP T T TP VDP V VP

19 Predictions T/Agr (=INFL): T/Agr (=INFL): Modals and auxiliaries appear there Modals and auxiliaries appear there Verbs, when they raise, raise to there. Verbs, when they raise, raise to there. Subject agreement is controlled there Subject agreement is controlled there C Complementizers (that, if) appear there Complementizers (that, if) appear there Wh-questions involve movement to CP Wh-questions involve movement to CP Agr AgrP C C CP DP T T TP VDP V VP

20 Predictions So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find: So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find: No evidence of verb raising. No evidence of verb raising. No consistent agreement with the subject. No consistent agreement with the subject. No modals or auxiliaries. No modals or auxiliaries. No complementizers. No complementizers. No complex sentences (embedded sentences) No complex sentences (embedded sentences) No wh-movement. No wh-movement. Agr AgrP C C CP DP T T TP VDP V VP

21 V&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack of At the VP stage, we find lack of verb raising (INFL and/or CP) verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP) complementizers (CP) wh-movement (CP) wh-movement (CP) stageL1AuxModDefault VPKor1168 VPTur0175 VP-iIt0065 VP-iiIt0082 VP-iSp8574 VP-iiSp1157 All came from Rosalinda (Sp.); three instances of wolle ‘want’ and five with is(t) ‘is’—evidence seems to be that she doesn’t control IP yet.

22 V&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack of At the VP stage, we find lack of verb raising (INFL and/or CP) verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP) complementizers (CP) wh-movement (CP) wh-movement (CP) Antonio (Sp): 7 of 9 sentences with temporal adverbs show adverb–verb order (no raising); 9 of 10 with negation showed neg–verb order. Antonio (Sp): 7 of 9 sentences with temporal adverbs show adverb–verb order (no raising); 9 of 10 with negation showed neg–verb order. Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only 14%. Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only 14%.

23 V&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack of At the VP stage, we find lack of verb raising (INFL and/or CP) verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP) complementizers (CP) wh-movement (CP) wh-movement (CP) No embedded clauses with complementizers. No embedded clauses with complementizers. No wh-questions with a fronted wh-phrase (at least, not that requires a CP analysis). No wh-questions with a fronted wh-phrase (at least, not that requires a CP analysis). No yes-no questions with a fronted verb. No yes-no questions with a fronted verb.

24 V&YS L2A—TP stage After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single functional projection, which appears to be TP. After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single functional projection, which appears to be TP. Modals and auxiliaries can start there. Modals and auxiliaries can start there. Verb raising can take place to there. Verb raising can take place to there. Note: the TL TP is head-final, however. Note: the TL TP is head-final, however. Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and not yet AgrP is acquired). Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and not yet AgrP is acquired).

25 V&YS L2A—TP stage Characteristics of the TP stage: Characteristics of the TP stage: optional verb raising (to T) optional verb raising (to T) some auxiliaries and modals (to T) some auxiliaries and modals (to T) lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP yet) lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP yet) lack of complementizers (CP) lack of complementizers (CP) lack of wh-movement (CP) lack of wh-movement (CP) stageL1AuxModDefault TPSp21941 TPTur[0]568–75 Now, Korean/Turkish speakers raise the verb around 46% of the time.

26 V&YS L2A—AgrP stage After the TP stage, there seems to be an AgrP stage (where AgrP is head-initial—different from the eventual L2 grammar, where AgrP should be head-final) After the TP stage, there seems to be an AgrP stage (where AgrP is head-initial—different from the eventual L2 grammar, where AgrP should be head-final) Properties of the AgrP stage: Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raising frequent verb raising frequent auxiliaries and modals common auxiliaries and modals common agreement paradigm acquired agreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizers some embedded clauses with complementizers complex wh-questions attested. complex wh-questions attested.

27 V&YS L2A—AgrP Properties of the AgrP stage: Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raising frequent verb raising frequent auxiliaries and modals common auxiliaries and modals common agreement paradigm acquired agreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizers some embedded clauses with complementizers complex wh-questions attested complex wh-questions attested Turkish/Korean speakers raising the verb 76% of the time. Turkish/Korean speakers raising the verb 76% of the time. CP structure? Seems to be “on its way in”, but V&YS don’t really have much to say about this. CP structure? Seems to be “on its way in”, but V&YS don’t really have much to say about this.

28 Vainikka & Young-Scholten Summary of the proposed stages Summary of the proposed stages Top XP V- mmt aux/ modals oblig subjs S–V agrt embedded w/ C question formation VPno FPoptsomeno AgrPyes no

29 Stages So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages… So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages… An important point about this is that this does not mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly one kind of structure. An important point about this is that this does not mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly one kind of structure. (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be inferred.) (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be inferred.) The way to think of this is that there is a progression of stages, but that adjacent stages often co-exist for a time— so, “between” the VP and TP stages, some utterances are VPs, some are TPs. The way to think of this is that there is a progression of stages, but that adjacent stages often co-exist for a time— so, “between” the VP and TP stages, some utterances are VPs, some are TPs. This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of register in one’s L1, except that there is a definite progression. This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of register in one’s L1, except that there is a definite progression.

30 V&YS summary So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that L2A is acquired by “building up” the syntactic tree—that beginner L2’ers have syntactic representations of their utterances which are lacking the functional projections which appear in the adult L1’s representations, but that they gradually acquire the full structure. So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that L2A is acquired by “building up” the syntactic tree—that beginner L2’ers have syntactic representations of their utterances which are lacking the functional projections which appear in the adult L1’s representations, but that they gradually acquire the full structure. V&YS also propose that the information about the VP is borrowed wholesale from the L1, that there is no stage prior to having just a VP. V&YS also propose that the information about the VP is borrowed wholesale from the L1, that there is no stage prior to having just a VP. Lastly, V&YS consider this L2A to be just like L1A in course of acquisition (though they leave open the question of speed/success/etc.) Lastly, V&YS consider this L2A to be just like L1A in course of acquisition (though they leave open the question of speed/success/etc.)

31 Problems with Minimal Trees White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties that the Minimal Trees account has. White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties that the Minimal Trees account has. Data seems to be not very consistent. Data seems to be not very consistent. Evidence for DP and NegP from V&YS’s own data. Evidence for DP and NegP from V&YS’s own data. E->F kids manage to get V left of pas (Grondin & White 1996) E->F kids manage to get V left of pas (Grondin & White 1996) but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids who might have benefited from earlier exposure to French. but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids who might have benefited from earlier exposure to French. V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default value. V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default value. Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI (evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. (Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996). Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI (evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. (Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996).

32 Problems with Minimal Trees Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary. Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary. V&YS count something as acquired if it appears more than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%. V&YS count something as acquired if it appears more than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%. Is morphology really the best indicator of knowledge? Is morphology really the best indicator of knowledge? Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks hence, say “no”— better is to look at the properties like word order that the functional categories are supposed to be responsible for. Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks hence, say “no”— better is to look at the properties like word order that the functional categories are supposed to be responsible for. To account for apparent V2 without CP, V&YS need a weird German story in which TP/AgrP starts out head- initial but is later returned to its proper head-final status. To account for apparent V2 without CP, V&YS need a weird German story in which TP/AgrP starts out head- initial but is later returned to its proper head-final status.

33 Paradis et al. (1998) Paradis et al. (1998) looked at 15 English-speaking children in Québec, learning French (since kindergarten, interviewed at the end of grade one), and sought to look for evidence for (or against) this kind of “tree building” in their syntax. Paradis et al. (1998) looked at 15 English-speaking children in Québec, learning French (since kindergarten, interviewed at the end of grade one), and sought to look for evidence for (or against) this kind of “tree building” in their syntax. They looked at morphology to determine when the children “controlled” it (vs. producing a default) and whether there was a difference between the onset of tense and the onset of agreement. They looked at morphology to determine when the children “controlled” it (vs. producing a default) and whether there was a difference between the onset of tense and the onset of agreement. On one interpretation of V&YS, they predict that tense should be controlled before agreement, since TP is lower in the tree that AgrP. On one interpretation of V&YS, they predict that tense should be controlled before agreement, since TP is lower in the tree that AgrP.

34 Agr before T T before Agr Both T and Agr at outset 3pl before tense 3pl after tense Both 3pl and tense at outset Past before Fut Fut before Past Both Fut and Past at outset 627 Paradis et al. (1998) Agr reliably before T Agr reliably before T 3pl late (of agreements). 3pl late (of agreements). Future late (of tenses). Future late (of tenses).

35 Paradis et al. (1998) So, the interpretation of this information might be that: So, the interpretation of this information might be that: (Child) L2A does seem to progress in stages. (Child) L2A does seem to progress in stages. This isn’t strictly compatible with the tree building approach, however, if TP is lower than AgrP. It would require slight revisions to make this work out (not necessarily drastic revisions). This isn’t strictly compatible with the tree building approach, however, if TP is lower than AgrP. It would require slight revisions to make this work out (not necessarily drastic revisions).

36 Eubank: Valueless Features Hypothesis Another contender for the title of Theory of the Initial State is the “Valueless Features Hypothesis” of Eubank (1993/4). Another contender for the title of Theory of the Initial State is the “Valueless Features Hypothesis” of Eubank (1993/4). Like Minimal Trees, the VFH posits essentially that functional parameters are not initially set (not transferred from the L1). Like Minimal Trees, the VFH posits essentially that functional parameters are not initially set (not transferred from the L1). Unlike Minimal Trees, the VFH does assume that the entire functional structure is there. But, e.g., for V->T, the parameter/feature value that determines whether V moves to T is “undefined”. Unlike Minimal Trees, the VFH does assume that the entire functional structure is there. But, e.g., for V->T, the parameter/feature value that determines whether V moves to T is “undefined”.

37 VFH The interpretation of a “valueless” feature is the crucial point here. It’s not clear really what this should mean, but Eubank takes it to mean something like “not consistently on or off”. Hence, again using V->T as an example, the verb is predicted to sometimes raise (V->T on) and sometimes not (V->T off). E.g., either is fine in L2 English of: The interpretation of a “valueless” feature is the crucial point here. It’s not clear really what this should mean, but Eubank takes it to mean something like “not consistently on or off”. Hence, again using V->T as an example, the verb is predicted to sometimes raise (V->T on) and sometimes not (V->T off). E.g., either is fine in L2 English of: Pat eats often apples. Pat eats often apples. Pat often eats apples. Pat often eats apples.

38 VFH and V->T In fact (as we’ll discuss more carefully in a couple of weeks), White did a well-known series of experiments on F>L2E learners that did show that the learners accepted both. In fact (as we’ll discuss more carefully in a couple of weeks), White did a well-known series of experiments on F>L2E learners that did show that the learners accepted both. Pat eats often apples. Pat eats often apples. Pat often eats apples. Pat often eats apples. Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, but White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s unexpected for the VFH that they don’t also allow verb raising past negation. Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, but White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s unexpected for the VFH that they don’t also allow verb raising past negation. *Pat eats not apples. *Pat eats not apples. Pat does not eat apples. Pat does not eat apples.

39 Yuan (2001) and {F,E}>L2C Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C learners’ responses to alternative verb-adverb orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V order (no raising). Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C learners’ responses to alternative verb-adverb orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V order (no raising). Zhangsan changchang kan dianshi. Zhangsan changchang kan dianshi. *Zhangsan kan changchang dianshi. *Zhangsan kan changchang dianshi. But neither group (and notably not even F>L2C) ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. *VFH, but also possibly *FTFA (to be discussed soon). But neither group (and notably not even F>L2C) ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. *VFH, but also possibly *FTFA (to be discussed soon). One further note: Yuan’s subjects were adults, White’s were children. This might have mattered. One further note: Yuan’s subjects were adults, White’s were children. This might have mattered.

40 Eubank’s own experiments Eubank & Grace (1998) tried an interesting methodology in an experiment to test for grammaticality of raised-verb structures in IL grammars. Something like a “lexical decision task” but with sentences (“are these the same or different?”), recording the reaction time, and based on the finding that native speakers are slower to react to ungrammatical sentences. Eubank & Grace (1998) tried an interesting methodology in an experiment to test for grammaticality of raised-verb structures in IL grammars. Something like a “lexical decision task” but with sentences (“are these the same or different?”), recording the reaction time, and based on the finding that native speakers are slower to react to ungrammatical sentences.

41 Eubank & Grace (1998) E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them into two groups based on a pretest of their production of subject-verb agreement (idea: “no- agreement” subjects would have not valued their features yet, “agreement” subjects have at least valued some of them). E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them into two groups based on a pretest of their production of subject-verb agreement (idea: “no- agreement” subjects would have not valued their features yet, “agreement” subjects have at least valued some of them). Finding: No-agreement subjects acted like native speakers, agreement subjects didn’t differentiate between grammatical and ungrammatical verb-adverb orders. Finding: No-agreement subjects acted like native speakers, agreement subjects didn’t differentiate between grammatical and ungrammatical verb-adverb orders. Hmm. Hmm.

42 Eubank et al. (1997) Same basic premises, different tasks: Same basic premises, different tasks: Tom draws slowly jumping monkeys. Tom draws slowly jumping monkeys. For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is the jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this. For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is the jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this. Even prior to looking at the results, one problem here is that this is fine in L1 English if slowly is taken as a parenthetical (“Tom draws— slowly— jumping monkeys”). But that’s the crucial interpretation that is supposed to show verb raising is grammatical. What could we conclude, no matter what the results are? Even prior to looking at the results, one problem here is that this is fine in L1 English if slowly is taken as a parenthetical (“Tom draws— slowly— jumping monkeys”). But that’s the crucial interpretation that is supposed to show verb raising is grammatical. What could we conclude, no matter what the results are?

43 Eubank et al. (1997) The actual results didn’t go along very well with the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance rate of raised-V interpretations if they’re really supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And the agreement group wasn’t acting native-speaker-like either, even though they should have valued the feature. The actual results didn’t go along very well with the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance rate of raised-V interpretations if they’re really supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And the agreement group wasn’t acting native-speaker-like either, even though they should have valued the feature. Eubank et al. actually go further with the VFH, hypothesizing that this is not only the initial state, but also the inescapable final state—L2 features cannot be valued (hence the lack of serious improvement among the agreement group—”Local Impairment”, for next week). Eubank et al. actually go further with the VFH, hypothesizing that this is not only the initial state, but also the inescapable final state—L2 features cannot be valued (hence the lack of serious improvement among the agreement group—”Local Impairment”, for next week).

44 Schwartz 1998 Promotes the idea that L2 patterns come about from full transfer and full access. Promotes the idea that L2 patterns come about from full transfer and full access. The entire L1 grammar (not just short trees) is the starting point. The entire L1 grammar (not just short trees) is the starting point. Nothing stops parameters from being reset in the IL. Nothing stops parameters from being reset in the IL.

45 Erdem (Haznedar 1995) An initial SOV stage (transfer from Turkish) is evident, followed by a switch to SVO. An initial SOV stage (transfer from Turkish) is evident, followed by a switch to SVO.

46 N-Adj order Parodi et al. (1997) jene drei interessanten Bücher those three interesting.pl books jene drei interessanten Bücher those three interesting.pl books ku se-kwon-uy caemiissnun chaek-tul that three-cl-gen interesting book-pl ku se-kwon-uy caemiissnun chaek-tul that three-cl-gen interesting book-pl ben-im pekçok inginç kitab-Im 1sg-gen many interesting book-1sg ben-im pekçok inginç kitab-Im 1sg-gen many interesting book-1sg quei tre libri interessanti those three books interesting.pl quei tre libri interessanti those three books interesting.pl esos tres libros interesantes those three books interesting.pl esos tres libros interesantes those three books interesting.pl

47 N-Adj in Romance The standard way of looking at N-Adj order in Romance (in terms of native speaker adult syntax) is like this: The standard way of looking at N-Adj order in Romance (in terms of native speaker adult syntax) is like this: Adj N is the base order Adj N is the base order German, Korean, Turkish German, Korean, Turkish N moves over Adj in Romance N moves over Adj in Romance Spanish, Italian Spanish, Italian What did the L2’ers do learning German? What did the L2’ers do learning German? D D DP N adjective N NP …

48 Parodis 1997—N-Adj order NLN-Adj (error) BongiovanniI3/8 1/5 37.5% 20.0% LinaI3/23 0/8 1/ % 0.0% 9.1% BrunoI9/32 17/64 0/ % 26.6% 0.0% AnaS7/28 0/ % 0.0% KoreansK1/1021.0% TurksT0/1030.0%

49 So… So, movement seems to be initially transferred, and has to be unlearned. So, movement seems to be initially transferred, and has to be unlearned. The evidence for the tree building approach doesn’t seem all that strong anymore. The evidence for the tree building approach doesn’t seem all that strong anymore. No nice Case results like in L1. No nice Case results like in L1. Higher parameters seem to transfer (*VFH, *Minimal Trees) Higher parameters seem to transfer (*VFH, *Minimal Trees) Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate (to be discussed in two weeks). Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate (to be discussed in two weeks).

50 No transfer/Full access Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote a well-known BBS article endorsing the view that L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it basically “starts over” with UG like L1A does. Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote a well-known BBS article endorsing the view that L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it basically “starts over” with UG like L1A does. Editorial comment: It’s worth reading, but the responses are at least as important as the article. Editorial comment: It’s worth reading, but the responses are at least as important as the article.

51 New parameter settings Japanese vs. English = SOV vs. SVO. Japanese vs. English = SOV vs. SVO. EFM make a mysterious statement: EFM make a mysterious statement: “Left-headed C° correlates with right-branching adjunction and right- headed C° with left-branching adjunction” “Left-headed C° correlates with right-branching adjunction and right- headed C° with left-branching adjunction” …followed by an example of how English allows both left and right adjunction. …followed by an example of how English allows both left and right adjunction. What EFM must mean is that SVO language-speakers prefer postposed adverbial clauses. What EFM must mean is that SVO language-speakers prefer postposed adverbial clauses. The worker called the owner [when the engineer finished the plans]. The worker called the owner [when the engineer finished the plans]. [When the actor finished the book] the woman called the professor. [When the actor finished the book] the woman called the professor.

52 New parameter settings And then EFM proceed to report that Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t significantly prefer preverbal adverbial clauses (purported SOV preference), and even eventually prefer postverbal adverbial clauses (purported SVO preference). And then EFM proceed to report that Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t significantly prefer preverbal adverbial clauses (purported SOV preference), and even eventually prefer postverbal adverbial clauses (purported SVO preference). But preferences are not parameter settings in any obvious way. Nothing is ruled out in any event—this is not a very useful result (see also Schwartz’s response). But preferences are not parameter settings in any obvious way. Nothing is ruled out in any event—this is not a very useful result (see also Schwartz’s response).

53 Martohardjono 1993 Interesting test of relative judgments. Interesting test of relative judgments. It is generally agreed that ECP violations… It is generally agreed that ECP violations… Which waiter did the man leave the table after spilled the soup? Which waiter did the man leave the table after spilled the soup? are worse than Subjacency violations are worse than Subjacency violations Which patient did Max explain how the poison killed? Which patient did Max explain how the poison killed? Do L2’ers get these kinds of judgments? Do L2’ers get these kinds of judgments?

54 Martohardjono 1993 Turns out, yeah, they seem to. Turns out, yeah, they seem to. But it turns out that speakers of languages without overt wh-movement had lower accuracy on judging the violations overall. But it turns out that speakers of languages without overt wh-movement had lower accuracy on judging the violations overall. So: L1 has some effect (although EFM don’t really talk about this much, something which occupies much of the peer reviewers’ time). So: L1 has some effect (although EFM don’t really talk about this much, something which occupies much of the peer reviewers’ time). EFM suggest that these judgments cannot be coming from the L1 alone, but of course this also relies on the view that L1 is significantly impoverished by “instantiation” (not the common view, not even in 1996). EFM suggest that these judgments cannot be coming from the L1 alone, but of course this also relies on the view that L1 is significantly impoverished by “instantiation” (not the common view, not even in 1996).

55 EFM’s experiment Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers learning English (33 kids, 18 adults). Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers learning English (33 kids, 18 adults). Trying to elicit sentences with things associated with functional categories (tense marking, modals, do-support for IP; topicalization, relative clauses, wh-questions for CP). Trying to elicit sentences with things associated with functional categories (tense marking, modals, do-support for IP; topicalization, relative clauses, wh-questions for CP). The point was actually more to refute the idea that adults have UG “turned off” after a “critical period” than anything else (a discussion we’ll return to) The point was actually more to refute the idea that adults have UG “turned off” after a “critical period” than anything else (a discussion we’ll return to)

56 EFM’s experiment Kids did equally well in this repetition task as adults. Kids did equally well in this repetition task as adults. Kids seemed to get around 70% success on IP-related things, around 50% success on CP-related things. The deeper topicalizations are harder than shallower topicalizations. Kids seemed to get around 70% success on IP-related things, around 50% success on CP-related things. The deeper topicalizations are harder than shallower topicalizations. EFM would have you believe: EFM would have you believe: Based on their data collapsing over all kids and over all adults, there are no stages. Based on their data collapsing over all kids and over all adults, there are no stages. CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher success with IP, just because CP-related structures are intrinsically harder/more complex. CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher success with IP, just because CP-related structures are intrinsically harder/more complex. It could be true, but it’s certainly not a knock-down argument against V&YS or any of the other alternatives. It could be true, but it’s certainly not a knock-down argument against V&YS or any of the other alternatives. Also, as White (2003) notes, none of these sentences were ungrammatical (which we might have expected to be “repaired” under repetition)… if this is even a reliable task to begin with. Also, as White (2003) notes, none of these sentences were ungrammatical (which we might have expected to be “repaired” under repetition)… if this is even a reliable task to begin with.

57                       


Download ppt "Week 5b. Transfer and the “initial state” for L2a CAS LX 500A1 Topics in Linguistics: Language Acquisition."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google