GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 10. Transfer and the Week 10. Transfer and the “initial state” for L2A, plus some “initial state” for L2A, plus some

language universals for good language universals for good measuremeasure

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far

UG UG principlesprinciples (Subjacency, Binding Theory)(Subjacency, Binding Theory)

UG UG parametersparameters of variation of variation (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding

domains, null subject, Vdomains, null subject, VT)T) Justified in large part on the basis of L1.Justified in large part on the basis of L1.

the complexity of languagethe complexity of language the paucity of useful datathe paucity of useful data the uniform success and speed of L1’ers the uniform success and speed of L1’ers

acquiring language.acquiring language.

““UG in L2A” so farUG 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 Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of

systematicity, complexity which also seems to be systematicity, complexity which also seems to be more than the linguistic input could motivate.more than the linguistic input could motivate.

The question then:The question then: Is this systematicity “left Is this systematicity “left over” (transferred) from the existing L1, where over” (transferred) from the existing L1, where we know the systematicity exists already? Or is we know the systematicity exists already? Or is L2A also building up a new system like L1A?L2A also building up a new system like L1A?

We’ve seen that universal We’ve seen that universal principles principles which which operated in L1 seem to still operate in L2 (e.g., operated in L1 seem to still operate in L2 (e.g., ECP and Japanese case markers).ECP and Japanese case markers).

Initial state: 3 optionsInitial state: 3 options

The L1 (parameter settings)The L1 (parameter settings) Schwartz & Sprouse (1996) “Full Transfer/Full Schwartz & Sprouse (1996) “Full Transfer/Full

Access”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”

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

V&YS propose that phrase structure is V&YS propose that phrase structure is built upbuilt up from just a VP all the way up to a full clause.from just a VP all the way up to a full clause.

Similar to Radford’s L1 proposal except that Similar to Radford’s L1 proposal except that there is an order of acquisition even past the VP there is an order of acquisition even past the VP (i.e., IP before CP). Also similar to Rizzi’s L1 (i.e., IP before CP). Also similar to Rizzi’s L1 “truncation” proposal. And of course, basically “truncation” proposal. And of course, basically the same as Vainikka’s L1 tree building proposal.the same as Vainikka’s L1 tree building proposal.

V&YS propose that V&YS propose that bothboth L1A and L2A involve L1A and L2A involve this sort of “tree building.”this sort of “tree building.”

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A An adult clause, An adult clause,

where kids end up.where kids end up. The subject The subject

pronoun is in pronoun is in nominative case nominative case ((II, , hehe, , theythey), a case ), a case form reserved for form reserved for SpecAgrP in finite SpecAgrP in finite clauses (cf. clauses (cf. meme, , himhim, , them them or or mymy, , hishis, …)., …).

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A Very early on, kids are Very early on, kids are

observed to use observed to use non-non-nominative subjectsnominative subjects almost all the time almost all the time (90%) like:(90%) like:

My My make a housemake a house Nina (2;0)Nina (2;0)

The fact that the subject The fact that the subject is non-nominative can be is non-nominative can be taken as an indication taken as an indication that it isn’t in SpecAgrP.that it isn’t in SpecAgrP.

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A

Vainikka’s Vainikka’s proposal was that proposal was that children who do children who do this are in a this are in a VP VP stagestage, where their , where their entire syntactic entire syntactic representation of a representation of a sentence consists sentence consists of a verb phrase.of a verb phrase.

my

DP

V DP

V

VP

make

a house

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A As children get As children get

older, they start older, they start using nominative using nominative subjectssubjects

I I color mecolor me Nina (2;1)Nina (2;1)

But interestingly, But interestingly, they do they do notnot use use nominative subjects nominative subjects in in whwh-questions-questions

Know what Know what my my making?making? Nina (2;4)Nina (2;4)

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme


I I color mecolor me Nina (2;1)Nina (2;1)

The nominative subject The nominative subject tells us that the kid tells us that the kid has at least AgrP in has at least AgrP in their structure.their structure.


Normally Normally whwh--movement implies a movement implies a CP (CP (whwh-words are -words are supposed to move into supposed to move into SpecCP).SpecCP).

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme



However, if there is However, if there is no CP, Vainikka no CP, Vainikka hypothesizes that hypothesizes that the the whwh-word goes to -word goes to the highest specifier the highest specifier it it cancan go to— go to—SpecAgrP. Which SpecAgrP. Which means that the means that the subjectsubject can’t be can’t be there, and hence there, and hence can’t be nominative.can’t be nominative.

Agr

Agr

AgrP

my

DP

T

T

TP

V

DPi

V

VP

making

what

ti


Finally, kids reach Finally, kids reach a stage where the a stage where the whole tree is there whole tree is there and they use all and they use all nominative nominative subjects, even in subjects, even in whwh-questions.-questions.

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

Vainikka (1993/4)Vainikka (1993/4)

So, to summarize the L1A proposal: Acquisition So, to summarize the L1A proposal: Acquisition goes in (syntactically identifiable stages). Those goes in (syntactically identifiable stages). Those stages correspond to ever-greater articulation of stages correspond to ever-greater articulation of the tree.the tree. VP stage:VP stage:

No nominative subjects, no No nominative subjects, no whwh-questions.-questions. AgrP stage:AgrP stage:

Nominative subjects Nominative subjects except except in in whwh-questions.-questions. CP stage:CP stage:

Nominative subjects and Nominative subjects and whwh-questions.-questions.

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s primary Scholten’s primary claims about L2Aclaims about L2A

Vainikka & Young-Scholten take this idea Vainikka & Young-Scholten take this idea and propose that it and propose that it also also characterizes characterizes L2A… That is…L2A… That is…

L2A takes place in L2A takes place in stagesstages, grammars , grammars which successively replace each other which successively replace each other (perhaps after a period of competition).(perhaps after a period of competition).

The stages correspond to the “height” of The stages correspond to the “height” of the clausal structure.the clausal structure.


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

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

Cross-sectional:Cross-sectional: 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish. Turkish. Longitudinal:Longitudinal: 1 Spanish, 4 Italian. 1 Spanish, 4 Italian.

In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce sentences in which the headedness matches sentences in which the headedness matches their L1 and not German.their L1 and not German.

L1 L1 head % head-final VPs in L2

Korean/Turkish final 98

Italian/Spanish (I) initial 19

Italian/Spanish (II) initial 64

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

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

NL VPs V-initial V-final

Bongiovanni I 20 13 (65%) 7

Salvatore I 44 35 (80%) 9

Jose S 20 15 (75%) 5

Rosalinda S 24 24 (100%) 0

Antonio S 68 20 48 (71%)

Jose S 37 23 14 (38%)

Lina I 24 7 17 (71%)

Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76%)

PredictionsPredictions

Different parts of Different parts of the tree have the tree have different different properties properties associated with associated with them, and we want them, and we want to think about to think about what we would what we would predictpredict we’d see (if we’d see (if Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-Scholten are right) Scholten are right) at the various at the various stages.stages.

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP


T/Agr (=INFL):T/Agr (=INFL): Modals and Modals and

auxiliaries appear auxiliaries appear therethere

Verbs, when they Verbs, when they raise, raise to there.raise, raise to there.

Subject agreement is Subject agreement is controlled therecontrolled there

CC Complementizers Complementizers

((thatthat, , ifif) appear there) appear there Wh-questions involve Wh-questions involve

movement to CPmovement to CP

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP


So, if there is just a So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find:VP, we expect to find: No evidence of verb No evidence of verb

raising.raising. No consistent No consistent

agreement with the agreement with the subject.subject.

No modals or No modals or auxiliaries.auxiliaries.

No complementizers.No complementizers. No complex sentences No complex sentences

(embedded sentences)(embedded sentences) No No whwh-movement.-movement.

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage

At the VP stage, we At the VP stage, we find lack offind lack of verb raising (INFL verb raising (INFL

and/or CP)and/or CP) auxiliaries and auxiliaries and

modals (generated modals (generated in INFL)in INFL)

an agreement an agreement paradigm (INFL)paradigm (INFL)

complementizers complementizers (CP)(CP)

whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

VP Kor 1 1 68

VP Tur 0 1 75

VP-i It 0 0 65

VP-ii It 0 0 82

VP-i Sp 8 5 74

VP-ii Sp 1 1 57

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.

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack ofAt 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) whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

Antonio (Sp): 7 of 9 sentences with temporal Antonio (Sp): 7 of 9 sentences with temporal adverbs show adverbs show adverb–verb adverb–verb order (no raising); order (no raising); 9 of 10 with negation showed 9 of 10 with negation showed neg–verb neg–verb order.order.

Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only 14%.14%.

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack ofAt 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) whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

No embedded clauses with No embedded clauses with complementizers.complementizers.

No No whwh-questions with a fronted -questions with a fronted whwh-phrase -phrase (at least, not that requires a CP analysis).(at least, not that requires a CP analysis).

No yes-no questions with a fronted verb.No yes-no questions with a fronted verb.

V&YS L2A—TP stageV&YS L2A—TP stage

After the VP stage, L2 learners move After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single functional projection, to a single functional projection, which appears to be TP.which appears to be TP.

Modals and auxiliaries can start Modals and auxiliaries can start there.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 Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and not yet AgrP is (TP only, and not yet AgrP is acquired).acquired).

V&YS L2A—TP stageV&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 lack of whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

TP Sp 21 9 41

TP Tur [0] 5 68–75

Now, Korean/Turkish speakers raise the verb around 46% of the time.

V&YS L2A—AgrP stageV&YS L2A—AgrP stage

After the TP stage, there seems to be an AgrP stage After the TP stage, there seems to be an AgrP stage (where AgrP is (where AgrP is head-initialhead-initial—different from the —different from the eventual L2 grammar, where AgrP should be head-eventual L2 grammar, where AgrP should be head-finalfinal))

Properties of the AgrP stage:Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raisingverb raising frequent frequent auxiliaries and modalsauxiliaries and modals common common agreement paradigm acquiredagreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with some embedded clauses with

complementizerscomplementizers complex complex whwh-questions attested.-questions attested.

V&YS L2A—AgrPV&YS L2A—AgrP Properties of the AgrP stage:Properties of the AgrP stage:

verb raisingverb raising frequent frequent auxiliaries and modalsauxiliaries and modals common common agreement paradigm acquiredagreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizerssome embedded clauses with complementizers complex complex whwh-questions attested-questions attested

Turkish/Korean speakers raising the verb Turkish/Korean speakers raising the verb 76% of the time.76% of the time.

CP structure? Seems to be “on its way in”, CP structure? Seems to be “on its way in”, but V&YS don’t really have much to say but V&YS don’t really have much to say about this.about this.


Summary of the proposed stagesSummary of the proposed stages

Top XP

V-mmt

aux/modals

obligsubjs

S–Vagrt

embedded w/ C

question formation

VP no no no no no no

FP opt some no no no no

AgrP yes yes yes yes no no

StagesStages 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 An important point about this is that this does notnot

mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly one kind of structure.one kind of structure. (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by

Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be inferred.)inferred.)

The way to think of this is that there is a progression The way to think of this is that there is a progression of stages, but that adjacent stages often co-exist for of stages, but that adjacent stages often co-exist for a time—so, “between” the VP and TP stages, some a time—so, “between” the VP and TP stages, some utterances are VPs, some are TPs.utterances are VPs, some are TPs.

This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of register register in one’s L1, except that there is a definite in one’s L1, except that there is a definite progression.progression.

V&YS summaryV&YS summary So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that

L2A is acquired by “building up” the syntactic L2A is acquired by “building up” the syntactic treetree—that beginner L2’ers have syntactic —that beginner L2’ers have syntactic representations of their utterances which are representations of their utterances which are lacking the functional projections which lacking the functional projections which appear in the adult L1’s representations, but appear in the adult L1’s representations, but that they gradually acquire the full structure.that they gradually acquire the full structure.

V&YS also propose that the V&YS also propose that the information about information about the VP is borrowed wholesale from the L1the VP is borrowed wholesale from the L1, , that there is no stage prior to having just a VP.that there is no stage prior to having just a VP.

Lastly, V&YS consider this L2A to be just like Lastly, V&YS consider this L2A to be just like L1A in course of acquisition (though they L1A in course of acquisition (though they leave open the question of speed/success/etc.)leave open the question of speed/success/etc.)

Problems with Minimal Problems with Minimal TreesTrees

White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties that the Minimal Trees account has.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 E->F kids manage to get V left of paspas (Grondin & (Grondin &

White 1996)White 1996) but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids who but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids who

might have benefited from earlier exposure to French.might have benefited from earlier exposure to French. V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default

value.value. Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI

(evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also lead (evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. (Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996).(Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996).

Problems with Minimal Problems with Minimal TreesTrees

Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary.Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary. V&YS count something as acquired if it appears more V&YS count something as acquired if it appears more

than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%.arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%.

Is morphology really the best indicator of Is morphology really the best indicator of knowledge?knowledge? Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks hence, Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks hence,

say “no”— better is to look at the properties like word say “no”— better is to look at the properties like word order that the functional categories are supposed to order that the functional categories are supposed to be responsible for.be responsible for.

To account for apparent V2 without CP, V&YS To account for apparent V2 without CP, V&YS need a weird German story in which TP/AgrP need a weird German story in which TP/AgrP starts out head-initial but is later returned to its starts out head-initial but is later returned to its proper head-final status.proper head-final status.

Paradis et al. (1998)Paradis et al. (1998)

Paradis et al. (1998) looked at 15 English-speaking Paradis et al. (1998) looked at 15 English-speaking children in Québec, learning French (since children in Québec, learning French (since kindergarten, interviewed at the end of grade kindergarten, interviewed at the end of grade one), and sought to look for evidence for (or one), and sought to look for evidence for (or against) this kind of “tree building” in their syntax.against) this kind of “tree building” in their syntax.

They looked at morphology to determine when the They looked at morphology to determine when the children “controlled” it (vs. producing a default) children “controlled” it (vs. producing a default) and whether there was a difference between the and whether there was a difference between the onset of tense and the onset of agreement.onset of tense and the onset of agreement.

On one interpretation of V&YS, they predict that On one interpretation of V&YS, they predict that tense should be controlled before agreement, tense should be controlled before agreement, since TP is lower in the tree that AgrP.since TP is lower in the tree that AgrP.

Agr Agr before before TT

T T beforbefore Agre Agr

Both T Both T and Agr and Agr at outsetat outset

3pl 3pl before before tensetense

3pl 3pl after after tensetense

Both 3pl Both 3pl and and tense at tense at outsetoutset

88 00 77 00 1212 33Past Past before before FutFut

Fut Fut before before PastPast

Both Fut Both Fut and Past and Past at outsetat outset

66 22 77

Paradis et al. (1998)Paradis et al. (1998)

Agr reliably before TAgr reliably before T 3pl late (of 3pl late (of

agreements).agreements). Future late (of tenses).Future late (of tenses).

Paradis et al. (1998)Paradis et al. (1998) So, the interpretation of this information might So, the interpretation of this information might

be that:be that:

(Child) L2A (Child) L2A does does seem to progress in stages.seem to progress in stages.

This isn’t strictly compatible with the tree This isn’t strictly compatible with the tree building approach, however, if TP is lower than building approach, however, if TP is lower than AgrP. It would require slight revisions to make AgrP. It would require slight revisions to make this work out (not necessarily drastic revisions).this work out (not necessarily drastic revisions).

Eubank: Valueless Eubank: Valueless FeaturesFeatures

HypothesisHypothesis Another contender for the title of Theory of Another contender for the title of Theory of the Initial State is the “Valueless Features the Initial State is the “Valueless Features Hypothesis” of Eubank (1993/4).Hypothesis” of Eubank (1993/4).

Like Minimal Trees, the VFH posits Like Minimal Trees, the VFH posits essentially that functional parameters are essentially that functional parameters are not initially set (not transferred from the not initially set (not transferred from the L1).L1).

Unlike Minimal Trees, the VFH does Unlike Minimal Trees, the VFH does assume that the entire functional structure assume that the entire functional structure is there. But, e.g., for V->T, the is there. But, e.g., for V->T, the parameter/feature value that determines parameter/feature value that determines whether V moves to T is “undefined”.whether V moves to T is “undefined”.

VFHVFH

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

VFH and V->TVFH and V->T In fact (as we’ll discuss next week more In fact (as we’ll discuss next week more

carefully), White did a well-known series of carefully), White did a well-known series of experiments on F>L2E learners that did experiments on F>L2E learners that did show that the learners accepted both.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 Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, but White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s unexpected for the VFH that they don’t unexpected for the VFH that they don’t also allow verb raising past negation.also allow verb raising past negation. *Pat eats not apples.*Pat eats not apples. Pat does not eat apples.Pat does not eat apples.

Yuan (2001) and Yuan (2001) and {F,E}>L2C{F,E}>L2C

Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C learners’ responses to alternative verb-adverb learners’ responses to alternative verb-adverb orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V order (no raising).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) But neither group (and notably not even F>L2C) ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. *VFH, ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. *VFH, but also possibly *FTFA (to be discussed soon).but also possibly *FTFA (to be discussed soon).

One further note: One further note: Yuan’s subjects were adults, Yuan’s subjects were adults, White’s were children. This might have White’s were children. This might have mattered.mattered.

Eubank’s own Eubank’s own experimentsexperiments

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

Eubank & Grace (1998)Eubank & Grace (1998) E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them

into two groups based on a pretest of their into two groups based on a pretest of their production of subject-verb agreement (idea: production of subject-verb agreement (idea: “no-agreement” subjects would have not “no-agreement” subjects would have not valued their features yet, “agreement” valued their features yet, “agreement” subjects have at least valued some of them).subjects have at least valued some of them).

Finding:Finding: No-agreement subjects acted like No-agreement subjects acted like native speakers, agreement subjects didn’t native speakers, agreement subjects didn’t differentiate between grammatical and differentiate between grammatical and ungrammatical verb-adverb orders.ungrammatical verb-adverb orders.

Hmm.Hmm.

Eubank et al. (1997)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 For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is the

jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this.et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this.

Even prior to looking at the results, one Even prior to looking at the results, one problem here is that this is fine in L1 English if problem here is that this is fine in L1 English if slowly is taken as a parenthetical (slowly is taken as a parenthetical (“Tom draws“Tom draws— slowly— jumping monkeys”— slowly— jumping monkeys”). But that’s the ). But that’s the crucial interpretation that is supposed to show crucial interpretation that is supposed to show verb raising is grammatical. What verb raising is grammatical. What could could we we conclude, no matter what the results are?conclude, no matter what the results are?

Eubank et al. (1997)Eubank et al. (1997) The actual results didn’t go along very well with The actual results didn’t go along very well with

the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance rate the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance rate of raised-V interpretations if they’re really of raised-V interpretations if they’re really supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And the supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And the agreement group wasn’t acting native-speaker-agreement group wasn’t acting native-speaker-like either, even though they should have valued like either, even though they should have valued the feature.the feature.

Eubank et al. actually go further with the VFH, Eubank et al. actually go further with the VFH, hypothesizing that this is not only the initial state, hypothesizing that this is not only the initial state, but also the inescapable final state—L2 features but also the inescapable final state—L2 features cannotcannot be valued (hence the lack of serious be valued (hence the lack of serious improvement among the agreement groupimprovement among the agreement group—”Local Impairment”, for next week).—”Local Impairment”, for next week).

Schwartz 1998Schwartz 1998

Promotes the idea that L2 patterns Promotes the idea that L2 patterns come about from come about from full transferfull transfer and and full accessfull access.. The entire L1 grammar (not just short The entire L1 grammar (not just short

trees) is the starting point.trees) is the starting point. Nothing stops parameters from being Nothing stops parameters from being

reset in the IL.reset in the IL.

Erdem (Haznedar 1995)Erdem (Haznedar 1995)

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

N-Adj orderN-Adj orderParodi et al. (1997)Parodi et al. (1997)

jene drei interessanten Bücherjene drei interessanten Bücherthose three interesting.pl booksthose three interesting.pl books

ku se-kwon-uy caemiissnun chaek-tulku se-kwon-uy caemiissnun chaek-tulthat three-cl-gen interesting book-plthat three-cl-gen interesting book-pl

ben-im pekçok inginç kitab-Imben-im pekçok inginç kitab-Im1sg-gen many interesting book-1sg1sg-gen many interesting book-1sg

quei tre libri interessantiquei tre libri interessantithose three books interesting.plthose three books interesting.pl

esos tres libros interesantesesos tres libros interesantes those three books interesting.pl those three books interesting.pl

N-Adj in RomanceN-Adj in Romance The standard way of looking The standard way of looking

at N-Adj order in Romance at N-Adj order in Romance (in terms of native speaker (in terms of native speaker adult syntax) is like this:adult syntax) is like this: Adj N is the base orderAdj N is the base order

German, Korean, TurkishGerman, Korean, Turkish N moves over Adj in RomanceN moves over Adj in Romance

Spanish, ItalianSpanish, Italian

What did the L2’ers do What did the L2’ers do learning German?learning German?

D

D

DP

N

adjective N

NP

…

Parodis 1997—N-Adj Parodis 1997—N-Adj orderorderNL N-Adj (error)

Bongiovanni I 3/81/5

37.5%20.0%

Lina I 3/230/81/11

13.0%0.0%9.1%

Bruno I 9/3217/640/12

28.1%26.6%0.0%

Ana S 7/280/10

25.0%0.0%

Koreans K 1/102 1.0%

Turks T 0/103 0.0%

So…So…

So, movement seems to be initially So, movement seems to be initially transferred, and has to be unlearned.transferred, and has to be unlearned.

The evidence for the tree building The evidence for the tree building approach doesn’t seem all that strong approach doesn’t seem all that strong anymore.anymore. No nice Case results like in L1.No nice Case results like in L1. Higher parameters seem to transfer (*VFH, Higher parameters seem to transfer (*VFH,

*Minimal Trees)*Minimal Trees) Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate

(to be discussed in two weeks).(to be discussed in two weeks).

No transfer/Full accessNo transfer/Full access

Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote a well-known a well-known BBS BBS article endorsing the view that article endorsing the view that L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it basically “starts over” with UG like L1A does.basically “starts over” with UG like L1A does.

Editorial commentEditorial comment: For such a public article, it really : For such a public article, it really is not very well executed. Particularly grating is the is not very well executed. Particularly grating is the mischaracterization and narrow readings of other mischaracterization and narrow readings of other theoretical approaches, but even their own position— theoretical approaches, but even their own position— which on its face doesn’t even seem viable— is very which on its face doesn’t even seem viable— is very loosely argued. It’s worth reading, but the loosely argued. It’s worth reading, but the responses responses are at least as important as the article.are at least as important as the article.

New parameter settingsNew 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 Left-headed C° correlates with right-branching adjunction and right-headed C° with left-branching adjunction”right-headed C° with left-branching adjunction”

……followed by an example of how English allows both left followed by an example of how English allows both left and right adjunction.and right adjunction.

What EFM What EFM mustmust mean is that SVO language-speakers mean is that SVO language-speakers preferprefer postposed adverbial clauses. postposed adverbial clauses. The worker called the owner [when the engineer finished the The worker called the owner [when the engineer finished the

plans].plans]. [When the actor finished the book] the woman called the professor.[When the actor finished the book] the woman called the professor.

New parameter settingsNew parameter settings And then EFM proceed to report that And then EFM proceed to report that

Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t significantly prefer preverbal adverbial significantly prefer preverbal adverbial clauses (purported SOV preference), and clauses (purported SOV preference), and even eventually prefer postverbal adverbial even eventually prefer postverbal adverbial clauses (purported SVO preference).clauses (purported SVO preference).

But But preferencespreferences are not are not parameter settingsparameter settings in any obvious way. Nothing is ruled out in in any obvious way. Nothing is ruled out in any event—this is not a very useful result any event—this is not a very useful result (see also Schwartz’s response).(see also Schwartz’s response).

Martohardjono 1993Martohardjono 1993

Interesting test of Interesting test of relativerelative judgments. judgments. It is generally agreed that ECP It is generally agreed that ECP

violations…violations… Which waiter did the man leave the table Which waiter did the man leave the table

after spilled the soup?after spilled the soup? are worse than Subjacency violationsare worse than Subjacency violations

Which patient did Max explain how the Which patient did Max explain how the poison killed?poison killed?

Do L2’ers get these kinds of Do L2’ers get these kinds of judgments?judgments?

Martohardjono 1993Martohardjono 1993 Turns out, yeah, they seem to.Turns out, yeah, they seem to. But it turns out that speakers of languages without But it turns out that speakers of languages without

overt overt whwh-movement had lower accuracy on -movement had lower accuracy on judging the violations overall.judging the violations overall.

So: So: L1 has L1 has some effectsome effect (although EFM don’t really (although EFM don’t really talk about this much, something which occupies talk about this much, something which occupies much of the peer reviewers’ time).much of the peer reviewers’ time).

EFM suggest that these judgments cannot be EFM suggest that these judgments cannot be coming from the L1 alone, but of course this also coming from the L1 alone, but of course this also relies on the view that L1 is significantly relies on the view that L1 is significantly impoverished by “instantiation” (not the common impoverished by “instantiation” (not the common view, not even in 1996).view, not even in 1996).

EFM’s experimentEFM’s experiment Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers

learning English (33 kids, 18 adults).learning English (33 kids, 18 adults).

Trying to elicit sentences with things Trying to elicit sentences with things associated with functional categories (tense associated with functional categories (tense marking, modals, marking, modals, dodo-support for IP; -support for IP; topicalization, relative clauses, topicalization, relative clauses, whwh-questions -questions for CP).for CP).

The point was actually more to refute the The point was actually more to refute the idea that adults have UG “turned off” after a idea that adults have UG “turned off” after a “critical period” than anything else (a “critical period” than anything else (a discussion we’ll return to)discussion we’ll return to)

EFM’s experimentEFM’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, Kids seemed to get around 70% success on IP-related things,

around 50% success on CP-related things. The deeper around 50% success on CP-related things. The deeper topicalizations are harder than shallower topicalizations.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 Based on their data collapsing over all kids and over all adults, there

are no stages.are no stages. CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher success CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher success

with IP, just because CP-related structures are intrinsically with IP, just because CP-related structures are intrinsically harder/more complex.harder/more complex.

It It couldcould be true, but it’s certainly not a knock-down argument be true, but it’s certainly not a knock-down argument against V&YS or any of the other alternatives.against V&YS or any of the other alternatives.

Also, as White (2003) notes, none of these sentences were Also, as White (2003) notes, none of these sentences were ungrammatical (which we might have expected to be ungrammatical (which we might have expected to be “repaired” under repetition)… if this is even a reliable task to “repaired” under repetition)… if this is even a reliable task to begin with.begin with.

Stepping back a bitStepping back a bit

Let’s take some time to look at a few Let’s take some time to look at a few results coming out of an earlier results coming out of an earlier tradition, not strictly Principles & tradition, not strictly Principles & Parameters (and not covered by White) Parameters (and not covered by White) but still suggesting that to a certain but still suggesting that to a certain extent L2 learners may know something extent L2 learners may know something (perhaps unconsciously) about “what (perhaps unconsciously) about “what Language is like” (which is a certain Language is like” (which is a certain way we might characterize the content way we might characterize the content of UG).of UG).

Typological universalsTypological universals

1960’s and 1970’s saw a lot of 1960’s and 1970’s saw a lot of activity aimed at identifying activity aimed at identifying language universalslanguage universals, properties of , properties of Language.Language.

Class of Class of possible languagespossible languages is is smaller than you might think.smaller than you might think.

If a language has one property (A), it If a language has one property (A), it will necessarily have another (B).will necessarily have another (B). +A+A+B+B, , –A–B–A–B, , –A–A+B+B but neverbut never +A+A–B–B..

(Typological) universals(Typological) universals

All languages have vowels.All languages have vowels.

If a language has VSO as its basic word If a language has VSO as its basic word order, then it has order, then it has preprepositions (vs. positions (vs. postpostpositions).positions).

VSO?VSO?

Adposition typeAdposition typeYes Yes NoNo

PrePrepositionspositions WelshWelsh EnglishEnglish

PostPostpositionspositions NoneNone JapanesJapanesee

MarkednessMarkedness

Having Having dualsduals implies having implies having pluralsplurals Having Having plurals plurals says nothing about having says nothing about having dualsduals..

Having duals is Having duals is markedmarked—infrequent, more —infrequent, more complex. Having plurals is (relative to having complex. Having plurals is (relative to having duals) duals) unmarkedunmarked..

Generally markedness is in terms of comparable Generally markedness is in terms of comparable dimensions, but you dimensions, but you couldcould also say that also say that being VSO being VSO is marked relative to is marked relative to having prepositionshaving prepositions..

MarkednessMarkedness

““Markedness” actually has been used Markedness” actually has been used in a couple of different ways, although in a couple of different ways, although they share a common core.they share a common core.

Marked:Marked: More unlikely, in some sense. More unlikely, in some sense. Unmarked:Unmarked: More likely, in some More likely, in some

sense.sense.

You have to “mark” something marked; You have to “mark” something marked; unmarked is what you get if you don’t unmarked is what you get if you don’t say anything extra.say anything extra.

““Unlikeliness”Unlikeliness” Typological/crosslinguistic Typological/crosslinguistic infrequencyinfrequency..

VOS word order is marked.VOS word order is marked. More complexMore complex constructions. constructions.

[ts] is more marked than [t].[ts] is more marked than [t]. The The non-default settingnon-default setting of a parameter. of a parameter.

Non-null subjects?Non-null subjects? Language-specificLanguage-specific//idiosyncraticidiosyncratic

features.features. Vs. UG/universal features…?Vs. UG/universal features…?

Berlin & Kay 1969: Color Berlin & Kay 1969: Color termsterms

(On the boundaries of (On the boundaries of psychophysics, linguistics, psychophysics, linguistics, anthropology, and with issues about anthropology, and with issues about its its interpretationinterpretation, but still…), but still…)

Basic color terms Basic color terms across languages.across languages. It turns out that languages differ in It turns out that languages differ in

how many color terms count as how many color terms count as basic.basic. ( (blueishblueish, , salmon-coloredsalmon-colored, , crimsoncrimson, , blondblond, … are not basic)., … are not basic).


The segmentation of experience by speech The segmentation of experience by speech symbols is essentially arbitrarysymbols is essentially arbitrary. The different sets . The different sets of words for color in various languages are of words for color in various languages are perhaps the best ready evidence for such essential perhaps the best ready evidence for such essential arbitrariness. For example, in a high percentage of arbitrariness. For example, in a high percentage of African languages, there are African languages, there are only three “color only three “color words,” corresponding to our white, black, red, words,” corresponding to our white, black, red, which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum.which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum. In the Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are In the Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are five basic color words, and here “blue” and five basic color words, and here “blue” and “green” are subsumed under a single term“green” are subsumed under a single term.. Eugene Nida (1959)Eugene Nida (1959)


ArabicArabic (Lebanon) (Lebanon) BulgarianBulgarian (Bulgaria) (Bulgaria) CatalanCatalan (Spain) (Spain) CantoneseCantonese (China) (China) MandarinMandarin (China) (China) EnglishEnglish (US) (US) HebrewHebrew (Israel) (Israel) HungarianHungarian (Hungary) (Hungary) IbiboIbibo (Nigeria) (Nigeria) IndonesianIndonesian

(Indonesia)(Indonesia)

JapaneseJapanese (Japan) (Japan) KoreanKorean (Korea) (Korea) PomoPomo (California) (California) SpanishSpanish (Mexico) (Mexico) SwahiliSwahili (East Africa) (East Africa) TagalogTagalog (Philippines) (Philippines) ThaiThai (Thailand) (Thailand) TzeltalTzeltal (Southern (Southern

Mexico)Mexico) UrduUrdu (India) (India) VietnameseVietnamese (Vietnam) (Vietnam)

Eleven possible basic Eleven possible basic color termscolor terms

White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, gray.brown, purple, pink, orange, gray.

All languages contain term for white and All languages contain term for white and black.black.

Has Has 33 terms, contains a term for terms, contains a term for redred.. Has Has 44 terms, contains terms, contains green green or or yellowyellow.. Has Has 55 terms, contains terms, contains both both green green andand yellowyellow.. Has Has 66 terms, contains terms, contains blueblue.. Has Has 77 terms, contains terms, contains brownbrown.. Has Has 8 or more 8 or more terms, chosen from {terms, chosen from {purplepurple, ,

pinkpink, , orangeorange, , graygray}}

Color hierarchyColor hierarchy White, blackWhite, black RedRed Green, yellowGreen, yellow BlueBlue BrownBrown Purple, pink, orange, grayPurple, pink, orange, gray

Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there should be 2048 possible sets—but only 22 (1%) should be 2048 possible sets—but only 22 (1%) are attested.are attested.

Color termsColor terms BWBW Jalé (New Guinea) ‘brilliant’ vs. ‘dull’Jalé (New Guinea) ‘brilliant’ vs. ‘dull’ BWBWRR Tiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals inTiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals in

Seven Rivers District, Queensland.Seven Rivers District, Queensland. BWBWRRGG Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines) BWBWRRYY Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people (Queensland)Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people (Queensland) BWBWRRYYGG Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria) BWBWRRYYGGUU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe (Nigeria), Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe (Nigeria),

Mandarin?Mandarin? BWBWRRYYGGUUOO Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam (southern Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam (southern

India)India)

Color termsColor terms

Interesting questions abound, including Interesting questions abound, including whywhy this order, this order, whywhy these eleven—and these eleven—and there are potential reasons for it that there are potential reasons for it that can be drawn from the perception of can be drawn from the perception of color spaces which we will not attempt color spaces which we will not attempt here.here.

The point is: The point is: This is a fact about This is a fact about Language: Language: If you have a basic color term If you have a basic color term for for blueblue, you also have basic color terms , you also have basic color terms for for blackblack, , whitewhite, , redred, , greengreen, and , and yellowyellow..

Implicational hierarchyImplicational hierarchy

This is a This is a ranking of markednessranking of markedness or an or an implicational hierarchyimplicational hierarchy..

Having Having blueblue is more marked than having (any is more marked than having (any or all of) or all of) yellowyellow, , greengreen, , redred, , whitewhite, and , and blackblack..

Having Having greengreen is more marked than having is more marked than having redred……

Like a set of implicational universals…Like a set of implicational universals… Blue implies yellowBlue implies yellow Brown implies blueBrown implies blue Blue implies greenBlue implies green Pink implies brownPink implies brown Yellow or green imply red Yellow or green imply red Orange implies brownOrange implies brown Red implies blackRed implies black Gray implies brownGray implies brown Red implies whiteRed implies white Purple implies brownPurple implies brown

L2A?L2A?

Our overarching theme:Our overarching theme:How much is L2/IL like a L1?How much is L2/IL like a L1?

Do IL/L2 languages obey the Do IL/L2 languages obey the language universals that hold of language universals that hold of native languages?native languages?

This question is slightly less This question is slightly less theorytheory--laden than the questions we were laden than the questions we were asking about principles and asking about principles and parameters, although it’s similar…parameters, although it’s similar…

To my knowledge nobody has studied To my knowledge nobody has studied L2 acquisitions of color terms…L2 acquisitions of color terms…

Question formationQuestion formation

Declarative: Declarative: John will buy coffee.John will buy coffee.

WhWh-inversion: -inversion: What What willwill JohnJohn buy?buy? WhWh-fronting: -fronting: WhatWhat will John buy?will John buy? Yes/No-inversion: Yes/No-inversion: WillWill JohnJohn buy coffee?buy coffee?

Greenberg (1963):Greenberg (1963): WhWh-inversion implies -inversion implies WhWh-fronting.-fronting. Yes/No-inversion implies Yes/No-inversion implies WhWh-inversion.-inversion.

WhWh-inversion-inversionWhWh--frontingfronting

English, German:English, German: Both. Both. WhatWhat willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

Japanese Korean:Japanese Korean: neither.neither. John will buy what?John will buy what?

Finnish:Finnish: WhWh-fronting only.-fronting only. WhatWhat John will buy? John will buy?

UnattestedUnattested:: WhWh-inversion -inversion only.only. *Will John buy what?*Will John buy what?

Y/N-inversionY/N-inversionWhWh--inversioninversion

English:English: BothBoth WillWill JohnJohn buy coffee? What buy coffee? What willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

Japanese:Japanese: NeitherNeither John will buy coffee? John will buy what?John will buy coffee? John will buy what?

Lithuanian:Lithuanian: WhWh-inversion only.-inversion only. John will buy coffee? What John will buy coffee? What willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

UnattestedUnattested:: Y/N-inversion only.Y/N-inversion only. WillWill JohnJohn buy coffee? What John will buy? buy coffee? What John will buy?

Eckman, Moravcsik, Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)Wirth (1989)

L1: Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish L1: Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish (4)(4)

L2: EnglishL2: English

Note L1s chosen because they are Note L1s chosen because they are neither/neither type languages, to neither/neither type languages, to avoid questions of transfer.avoid questions of transfer.

Subjects tried to determine what was Subjects tried to determine what was going on in a scene by asking going on in a scene by asking questions.questions.


Example Y/N Qs:Example Y/N Qs: DidDid sheshe finished two bottle wine? finished two bottle wine? IsIs Lou and PattyLou and Patty known each other? known each other? Sue does drink orange juice?Sue does drink orange juice? Her parents are rich?Her parents are rich? IsIs this storythis story is chronological in a order? is chronological in a order? DoesDoes JoanJoan has a husband? has a husband? Yesterday Yesterday isis SueSue did drink two bottles did drink two bottles

of wine?of wine?


Example Example WhWh-Qs:-Qs: WhyWhy Sue didn’t look solution for her Sue didn’t look solution for her

problem?problem? WhereWhere Sue is living? Sue is living? WhyWhy diddid SueSue stops drinking? stops drinking? WhyWhy isis PattyPatty’s going robbing the bank?’s going robbing the bank? WhatWhat they are radicals? they are radicals? WhatWhat Sue and Patty connection? Sue and Patty connection? WhyWhy she was angry? she was angry?

Eckman Eckman et al. et al.

(1989)(1989)

whwh-inv-invwhwh--

fronting?fronting?

resultsresults

%% WhinvWhinv %% WhfrWhfr

SMSM KK 2525 NONO 100100 YESYES

UAUA TT 5454 NONO 100100 YESYES

TSTS JJ 7070 NONO 100100 YESYES

MKMK KK 8080 NONO 100100 YESYES

RORO JJ 8888 NONO 100100 YESYES

KOKO JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

MMHH

JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

NENE TT 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

SISI JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

GG TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

MAMA TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

STST JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

TMTM KK 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

YKYK JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

Eckman Eckman et al. et al.

(1989)(1989)

YN-inv.YN-inv. whwh-inv.?-inv.?

resultsresults

%% YNinvYNinv %% WHinvWHinv

SMSM KK 88 NONO 2525 NONO

MKMK KK 3838 NONO 8080 NONO

YKYK JJ 5151 NONO 101000

YESYES

TSTS JJ 6767 NONO 7070 NONO

TMTM KK 8383 NONO 101000

YESYES

RORO JJ 8585 NONO 8888 NONO

BGBG TT 8686 NONO 101000

YESYES

MAMA TT 8888 NONO 101000

YESYES

UAUA TT 9191 YESYES 5454 NONO

KOKO JJ 9393 YESYES 9595 YESYES

MHMH JJ 9595 YESYES 9595 YESYES

NENE TT 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYES

SISI JJ 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYES

STST JJ 100100 YESYES 101000

YESYES


Yes/no Yes/no inversioninversion

Wh-inversionWh-inversion

Yes (VS)Yes (VS) No (SV)No (SV)

Yes (VS)Yes (VS) 55 44

No (SV)No (SV) 11 44

Eckman’s Markedness Eckman’s Markedness Differential HypothesisDifferential Hypothesis

Markedness. Markedness. A phenomenon or structure X in some A phenomenon or structure X in some language is language is relatively more markedrelatively more marked than some than some other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the presence of X in a language linguistically the presence of X in a language implies the presence of Y, but the presence of Y implies the presence of Y, but the presence of Y does not imply the presence of X.does not imply the presence of X.

DualsDuals imply plurals. imply plurals. WhWh-inversion-inversion implies implies whwh-fronting.-fronting. BlueBlue implies red. implies red.

(…but what counts as a “phenomenon or structure”?)(…but what counts as a “phenomenon or structure”?)

Markedness Differential Markedness Differential HypothesisHypothesis

MDH: The areas of difficulty that a second language MDH: The areas of difficulty that a second language learner will have can be predicted on the basis of a learner will have can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the NL and TL such that:comparison of the NL and TL such that: Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and are Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and are

relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult;relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult; The degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of the The degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of the

TL that are different and more marked than in the NL TL that are different and more marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated with those aspects;with those aspects;

Those areas of the TL that are different than the NL but are Those areas of the TL that are different than the NL but are not relatively more marked than in the NL will not be difficult.not relatively more marked than in the NL will not be difficult.

Notice that this is assuming conscious effort again. Notice that this is assuming conscious effort again. Perhaps it need not, depending on how you interpret Perhaps it need not, depending on how you interpret “difficulty” but it seems like Eckman means it this “difficulty” but it seems like Eckman means it this way.way.

Another possible way to look at it is in terms of Another possible way to look at it is in terms of parameter settings and (Subset Principle compliant) parameter settings and (Subset Principle compliant) defaults, coupled with a FT/FA type theory…defaults, coupled with a FT/FA type theory…

MDH example:MDH example:Word-final segmentsWord-final segments

Voiced obstruentsVoiced obstruents most markedmost marked SurgeSurge Voiceless obstruentsVoiceless obstruents CokeCoke Sonorant consonantsSonorant consonants MountainMountain VowelsVowels least markedleast marked CoffeeCoffee

All Ls allow vowels word-finally—some All Ls allow vowels word-finally—some onlyonly allow allow vowels. Some (e.g., vowels. Some (e.g., MandarinMandarin, , JapaneseJapanese) allow ) allow only vowels and sonorants. Some (e.g., only vowels and sonorants. Some (e.g., PolishPolish) ) allow vowels, sonorants, but only allow vowels, sonorants, but only voicelessvoiceless obstruents. obstruents. EnglishEnglish allows all four types.allows all four types.

Eckman (1981)Eckman (1981)

Spanish L1Spanish L1 Mandarin L1Mandarin L1

GlossGloss IL formIL form GlossGloss IL formIL form

BobBob [b p][b p] TagTag [tæg ][tæg ]

BobbyBobby [b bi][b bi] AndAnd [ænd ][ænd ]

RedRed [r[rt]t] WetWet [w t][w t]

WetWet [w t][w t] DeckDeck [d[dk]k]

SickSick [s[sIIk]k] LetterLetter [l[lt r]t r]

BleedingBleeding [blid[blidIIn]n]

c

c

e

e

e

e

e

MDH example:MDH example:Word-final segmentsWord-final segments


Idea: Idea: MandarinMandarin has neither voiceless nor voiced has neither voiceless nor voiced obstruents in the L1—using a voiceless obstruent in obstruents in the L1—using a voiceless obstruent in place of a TL voiced obstruent is still not L1 compliant place of a TL voiced obstruent is still not L1 compliant and is a big markedness jump. Adding a vowel is L1 and is a big markedness jump. Adding a vowel is L1 compliant. compliant. SpanishSpanish has voiceless obstruents, to using a has voiceless obstruents, to using a voiceless obstruent for a TL voiced obstruent is L1 voiceless obstruent for a TL voiced obstruent is L1 compliant.compliant.

MDH and ILMDH and IL

The MDH presupposes that the IL The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys the implicational universals too.obeys the implicational universals too.

Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that this is at least reasonable.this is at least reasonable.

The MDH suggests that there is a The MDH suggests that there is a natural order of L2A along a natural order of L2A along a markedness scale (stepping to the markedness scale (stepping to the next level of markedness is easiest).next level of markedness is easiest).

Let’s consider what it means that an Let’s consider what it means that an IL obeys implicational universals…IL obeys implicational universals…

MDH and ILMDH and IL

IL obeys implicational universals.IL obeys implicational universals. That is, That is, we know that IL is a languagewe know that IL is a language.. So, we know that languages are such that So, we know that languages are such that

having word-final voiceless obstruents implies having word-final voiceless obstruents implies that you also have word-final sonorant that you also have word-final sonorant consonants, among other things.consonants, among other things.

What would happen if we taught Japanese L2 What would happen if we taught Japanese L2 learners of English only—and at the outset—learners of English only—and at the outset—voiced obstruents?voiced obstruents?

Generalizing with Generalizing with markedness scalesmarkedness scales


JapaneseJapanese learner of learner of EnglishEnglish will have an easier will have an easier time at each step learning voiceless obstruents time at each step learning voiceless obstruents and then voiced obstruents.and then voiced obstruents.

But—if taught voiced obstruents immediately, the But—if taught voiced obstruents immediately, the fact that the IL obeys implicational (markedness) fact that the IL obeys implicational (markedness) universals means that voiceless obstruents “come universals means that voiceless obstruents “come for free.”for free.”

NiftyNifty!!

Does it work? Does it help?Does it work? Does it help? Answers seem to be:Answers seem to be:

Yes, it seems to at least sort of work.Yes, it seems to at least sort of work. MaybeMaybe it helps. it helps.

Learning a marked structure is Learning a marked structure is harderharder.. So, if you learn a marked structure, So, if you learn a marked structure, you can automatically generalize to the you can automatically generalize to the less marked structuresless marked structures, but , but was it was it faster than learning the easier steps in faster than learning the easier steps in succession would have been?succession would have been?

The Noun Phrase The Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

Keenan & Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy Keenan & Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among the kinds of relative clauses that languages among the kinds of relative clauses that languages allow.allow.

The astronaut [(that) I met yesterday].The astronaut [(that) I met yesterday]. Head noun:Head noun: astronautastronaut Modifying clause:Modifying clause:

((that/who) I met — yesterday.that/who) I met — yesterday. Compare:Compare: I met I met the astronautthe astronaut yesterday. yesterday. This is an This is an object relativeobject relative because the place where because the place where

the head noun the head noun wouldwould be in the simple sentence be in the simple sentence version is the object.version is the object.


There are several kinds of relative clauses, There are several kinds of relative clauses, based on where the head noun “comes from” based on where the head noun “comes from” in the modifying clause:in the modifying clause:

The astronaut…The astronaut… [I met — yesterday][I met — yesterday] objectobject [who — met me yesterday][who — met me yesterday] subjectsubject [I gave a book to —][I gave a book to —] indirect objectindirect object [I was talking about —][I was talking about —] obj. of Pobj. of P [whose house I like —][whose house I like —] Genitive (possessor)Genitive (possessor) [I am braver than —][I am braver than —] obj. of obj. of

comparativecomparative


Turns out:Turns out: Languages differ in what Languages differ in what positions they allow relative clauses to be positions they allow relative clauses to be formed on.formed on.

EnglishEnglish allows allows all the positions all the positions mentioned mentioned to be used to make relative clauses.to be used to make relative clauses.

ArabicArabic allows relative clauses to be allows relative clauses to be formed only with formed only with subjectssubjects..

GreekGreek allows relative clauses to be allows relative clauses to be formed only with formed only with subjects subjects or or objectsobjects..

Resumptive pronounsResumptive pronouns

The guy The guy who they don’t know whether who they don’t know whether hehe wants to come.wants to come.

A student A student who I can’t make any sense out who I can’t make any sense out of the papers of the papers hehe writes. writes.

The actress The actress who Tom wondered whether who Tom wondered whether her her father was rich.father was rich.

In cases where relative clause formation is In cases where relative clause formation is notnot allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged by means of a pronoun in the position that by means of a pronoun in the position that the head noun is to be associated with.the head noun is to be associated with.

NPAH and resumptive NPAH and resumptive pronounspronouns

Generally speaking, it turns out that in languages Generally speaking, it turns out that in languages which which do notdo not allow relative clauses to be formed allow relative clauses to be formed off a certain position, they will off a certain position, they will insteadinstead allow allow relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun in that relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun in that position.position.

Arabic:Arabic: allows only subject relative clauses. But allows only subject relative clauses. But for all other positions allows a resumptive pronoun for all other positions allows a resumptive pronoun construction, analogous to:construction, analogous to: The book The book that John bought that John bought itit.. The tree The tree that John is standing by that John is standing by itit.. The astronaut The astronaut that John gave that John gave him him a present.a present.

NPAHNPAH

The positions off which you can relativize The positions off which you can relativize appears to be an appears to be an implicational hierarchyimplicational hierarchy..

Lang.Lang. SUBSUB DODO IOIO OPOP GENGEN OCOMPOCOMP

ArabicArabic –– ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

GreekGreek –– –– +?+? +?+? ++ ++

JapanesJapanesee

–– –– –– –– +/ +/ ––

PersianPersian –– (+)(+) ++ ++ ++ ++

Noun Phrase Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

More generally, there seems to be a More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of “difficulty” (or hierarchy of “difficulty” (or “(in)accessibility”) in the types of “(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative clauses.relative clauses.

A language which allows this…A language which allows this…

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OCompOComp



A language which allows this…A language which allows this… Will also allow these.Will also allow these.




A language which allows this…A language which allows this… Will also allow these. But not these…Will also allow these. But not these…


Relation to L2A?Relation to L2A? Suppose that KoL includes where the Suppose that KoL includes where the

target language is on the NPAH.target language is on the NPAH. Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple

relative clauses before the others?relative clauses before the others? Do L2’ers transfer the position of their L1 Do L2’ers transfer the position of their L1

first?first? Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar

obey this typological generalization (if obey this typological generalization (if they can relativize a particular point on they can relativize a particular point on the NPAH, can they relativize everything the NPAH, can they relativize everything higher too?)?higher too?)?

NPAH and L2A?NPAH and L2A? Probably:Probably: The higher something is on the NPAH, The higher something is on the NPAH,

the easier (faster) it is to learn.the easier (faster) it is to learn. So, it might be easier to start by teaching subject So, it might be easier to start by teaching subject

relatives, then object, then indirect object, etc. At relatives, then object, then indirect object, etc. At each step, the difficulty would be low.each step, the difficulty would be low.

But, it might be more But, it might be more efficientefficient to teach the (hard) to teach the (hard) object of a comparison—because if L2’ers object of a comparison—because if L2’ers interlanguage grammar includes whatever the interlanguage grammar includes whatever the NPAH describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible NPAH describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible implies that everything (higher) on the NPAH is implies that everything (higher) on the NPAH is possible too. That is, they might know it possible too. That is, they might know it without without instructioninstruction. (Same issue as before with the . (Same issue as before with the phonology)phonology)

NPAH in L2ANPAH in L2A

Very widely studied implicational Very widely studied implicational universal in L2A—many people have universal in L2A—many people have addressed the question of whether addressed the question of whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether teaching aa marked structure can teaching aa marked structure can help.help.

Eckman et al. (1989) was about this Eckman et al. (1989) was about this second question…second question…

Change from pre- to Change from pre- to post-testpost-test

Eckman, Bell, & Nelson Eckman, Bell, & Nelson (1988)(1988)

Transfer, markedness, …Transfer, markedness, …

Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the other way, Englishthe other way, EnglishKorean.Korean. English: English: Relativizes on all 6 positions.Relativizes on all 6 positions. Korean:Korean: Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP) Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)

SS SUSU dodo IOIO OPOP GEGE

1313 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

1414 ++ ++ ++ ++ --

1616 ++ ++ ++ -- --

2929 ++ ++ -- -- --

3131 ++ -- -- -- --

2020 -- -- -- -- --

Transfer, markedness, …Transfer, markedness, …

The original question Do was looking The original question Do was looking at was: at was: Do English speakers transfer Do English speakers transfer their position on the NPAH to the IL their position on the NPAH to the IL Korean?Korean?

But look: But look: If English allows all 6 If English allows all 6 positions, why do some of the positions, why do some of the learners only relativize down to DO, learners only relativize down to DO, some to IO, some to OPREP?some to IO, some to OPREP?

It looks like they started over.It looks like they started over.

Subset principle?Subset principle?

Null subject parameterNull subject parameter Option (a): Null subjects are Option (a): Null subjects are permittedpermitted.. Option (b): Null subjects are Option (b): Null subjects are not permittednot permitted..

Italian Italian = option a, = option a, English English = option b.= option b.

E

I

A tempting analogy… in some cases, parameters seem to be ranked in terms of how permissive each setting is.

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

The idea isThe idea is If one has only positive evidence, andIf one has only positive evidence, and If parameters are organized in terms of If parameters are organized in terms of

permissiveness,permissiveness, Then for a parameter setting to be Then for a parameter setting to be

learnable, the starting point needs to be learnable, the starting point needs to be the the subsetsubset setting of the parameter. setting of the parameter.

The Subset principle says that The Subset principle says that learners should start with the learners should start with the English setting of the null subject English setting of the null subject parameter and parameter and move to move to the Italian the Italian setting if evidence appears.setting if evidence appears.

E

I

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

The The Subset PrincipleSubset Principle is basically that is basically that learners are learners are conservativeconservative—they only —they only assume a grammar sufficient to generate the assume a grammar sufficient to generate the sentences they hear, allowing positive sentences they hear, allowing positive evidence to serve to move them to a evidence to serve to move them to a different parameter setting.different parameter setting.

Applied to L2: Applied to L2: Given a choice, the L2’er Given a choice, the L2’er assumes a grammatical option that assumes a grammatical option that generates a subset of the what the generates a subset of the what the alternative generates.alternative generates.

Does this describe L2A?Does this describe L2A? Is Is thisthis a useful sense of markedness? a useful sense of markedness?

Subset principle and Subset principle and markednessmarkedness

Based on the Subset principle, we’d expect the Based on the Subset principle, we’d expect the unmarked values (in a UG where languages are unmarked values (in a UG where languages are learnable) to be the ones which produce the learnable) to be the ones which produce the “smallest” grammars.“smallest” grammars.

Given that in L1A we don’t seem to see any Given that in L1A we don’t seem to see any “misset” parameters, we have at least indirect “misset” parameters, we have at least indirect evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH results constitute such evidence?results constitute such evidence?

Subset vs. TransferSubset vs. Transfer The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say

that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the maximally conservative grammar.maximally conservative grammar.

Another, Another, mutually exclusivemutually exclusive possibility (parameter possibility (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A starts with the by parameter, anyway) is that L2A starts with the L1 setting.L1 setting. This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, where the This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, where the

L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 has the L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, unmarked (subset) value, only negative evidenceonly negative evidence could could move the L2’er to the right setting.move the L2’er to the right setting.

Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing? At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH results At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH results

following from the Subset Principle is just that following from the Subset Principle is just that relative clauses formed on positions lower in the relative clauses formed on positions lower in the hierarchy are hierarchy are harder to processharder to process. Consider:. Consider:

The astronaut…The astronaut… who who [[IPIP tt met me yesterday]met me yesterday] SUBSUB who who [[IPIP II [[VPVP met met tt yesterday]] yesterday]] DODO who who [[IPIP II [[VPVP gave a bookgave a book [[PPPP toto tt ]]]]]] IOIO who who [[IPIP I was I was [[VPVP talking talking [[PPPP about about tt ]]]]]] OPREPOPREP whose house whose house [[IPIP II [[VPVP likelike [[DPDP t t ’s house’s house]]]]]] GENGEN who who [[IPIP I am I am [[APAP bravebrave [[degPdegP -er-er [[thanPthanP than than tt ]]]]]]]] OCOMPOCOMP

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing?

If it’s about processing, then the If it’s about processing, then the reason L2’ers progress through the reason L2’ers progress through the “hierarchy” might be that initially they “hierarchy” might be that initially they have limited processing room—they’re have limited processing room—they’re working too hardworking too hard at the L2 to be able at the L2 to be able to process such deep extractions.to process such deep extractions.

Why are they working so hard?Why are they working so hard? (Well, maybe L2A is like learning history?)(Well, maybe L2A is like learning history?)

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing? Is the NPAH Is the NPAH itselfitself simply a result of simply a result of

processing?processing? The NPAH is a typological generalization The NPAH is a typological generalization

about about languageslanguages not about the not about the course of course of acquisitionacquisition..

Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.

The NPAH may still be real, still be a The NPAH may still be real, still be a markedness hierarchy based in something markedness hierarchy based in something grammatical, but it turns out to be grammatical, but it turns out to be confounded confounded by processing.by processing.

So finding evidence of NPAH position So finding evidence of NPAH position transfertransfer is very difficult. is very difficult.

Subset problems?Subset problems? One problem, though, is that many of the One problem, though, is that many of the

parameters of variation we think of today parameters of variation we think of today don’t seem to be really don’t seem to be really inin a subset- a subset-superset relation. So there has to be superset relation. So there has to be something else going on in these cases something else going on in these cases anyway.anyway. VVTT

Yes: √SVAO, *SAVOYes: √SVAO, *SAVO No: *SVAO, √SAVONo: *SVAO, √SAVO

Anaphor typeAnaphor type Monomorphemic: √LD, *Non-subjectMonomorphemic: √LD, *Non-subject Polymorphemic: *LD, √Non-subject Polymorphemic: *LD, √Non-subject

GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Documents

Transcript of GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory