Transcript is(t)
GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory Week 10. Functional projections “UG in L2A” so far UG principles UG parameters of variation (Subjacency, Binding Theory) (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding domains, null subject, VT) Justified in large part on the basis of L1. the complexity of language the paucity of useful data the uniform success and speed of L1’ers acquiring language. “UG in L2A” so far 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. 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). “UG in L2A” so far We met a number of hypotheses about the extent to which UG constrains L2A; the full access proposal which claims that L2’ers can set parameters in their IL to any value allowed by UG, the indirect access proposal which claims that L2’ers are stuck with the parameters originally as originally set in their L1, and the partial access proposal which says that some parameters are re-settable, and others are not. “UG in L2A” so far We’ve seen evidence pointing in various directions. We expect that if a parameter is re-settable in the IL, all of the properties which follow from that parameter setting should be found in the IL. The binding theory results (English vs. Japanese vs. Russian) seem to suggest that the parameters of binding theory are re-settable in the IL. Head-parameter results also point toward re-settability. The verb-raising results (English vs. French) seem to suggest that the verb-raising parameter is not re-settable in the IL. Conclusions? Although it will be hard to find two researchers who wholly agree, it seems like we have some reason to believe that: UG does constrain IL and second languages Perhaps “via L1” For at least some parameters, L2’ers are pretty much stuck with the L1 settings, although for others, L2’ers can acquire a language with any of the settings made available by UG. For many parameters, transfer of the L1 settings seem to be the starting point. What else is there? Principles & Parameters models of UG provide a strong theoretical backdrop against which we can ask detailed questions about the systematicity of an L2’ers IL knowledge. Nevertheless the “UG approach” we’ve looked at so far has been primarily concerned with what is (or can be) learned— not so much how it is learned or what conditions affect this learning. Vainikka & Young-Scholten Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the development of L2 phrase structure in some detail—concentrating to some extent on the headedness parameter. They are looking at naturalistic L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]). Vainikka & Young-Scholten 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. V&YS propose that both L1A and L2A involve this sort of “tree building.” CP C Vainikka (1993/4), L1A AgrP C that DP she Agr Agr TP T T will VP V V 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, …). DP eat lunch CP C Vainikka (1993/4), L1A AgrP C that Agr DP she Agr TP T T will Very early on, kids are observed to use nonnominative subjects almost all the time (90%) like: My make a house VP The fact that the subject is non-nominative can be taken as an indication that it isn’t in SpecAgrP. V V Nina (2;0) DP eat lunch Vainikka (1993/4), L1A VP DP V V my make DP a house 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 (1993/4), L1A AgrP Agr DP I Agr TP T T As children get older, they start using nominative subjects I color me VP V V DP color me Nina (2;1) But interestingly, they do not use nominative subjects in whquestions Know what my making? Nina (2;4) Vainikka (1993/4), L1A AgrP Agr DP I Agr I color me TP T T VP The nominative subject tells us that the kid has at least AgrP in their structure. Know what my making? V V DP color me Nina (2;1) Nina (2;4) Normally wh-movement implies a CP (wh-words are supposed to move into SpecCP). Vainikka (1993/4), L1A AgrP Agr DPi what Know what my making? Agr TP T T VP DP my V V making ti 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. CP C Vainikka (1993/4), L1A AgrP C that Agr DP she Agr TP T T will VP V V DP eat lunch Finally, kids reach a stage where the whole tree is there and they use all nominative subjects, even in wh-questions. 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. VP stage: AgrP stage: No nominative subjects, no wh-questions. Nominative subjects except in wh-questions. CP stage: Nominative subjects and wh-questions. Vainikka & Young-Scholten’s primary claims about L2A 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). The stages correspond to the “height” of the clausal structure. Vainikka & Young-Scholten Vainikka & Young-Scholten (various publications) look at naturalistic L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]). Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the development of L2 phrase structure in some detail—and also have chosen speakers that can be informative concerning the possible transfer of headedness parameter. V&YS—headedness transfer 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. L1 Korean/Turkish L1 head final head-final VPs in L2 98 Italian/Spanish (I) Italian/Spanish (II) initial initial 19 64 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 Bongiovanni Salvatore NL I I VPs 20 44 V-initial 13 (65%) 35 (80%) V-final 7 9 Jose Rosalinda Antonio S S S 20 24 68 15 (75%) 24 (100%) 20 5 0 48 (71%) Jose Lina Salvatore S I I 37 24 25 23 7 6 14 (38%) 17 (71%) 19 (76%) CP Predictions C AgrP C Agr DP Agr TP T T VP V V DP 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. CP Predictions C AgrP C Agr DP Agr T/Agr (=INFL): TP T T VP V V Modals and auxiliaries appear there Verbs, when they raise, raise to there. Subject agreement is controlled there C DP Complementizers (that, if) appear there Wh-questions involve movement to CP CP Predictions C AgrP C Agr DP Agr TP T T So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find: VP V V DP No evidence of verb raising. No consistent agreement with the subject. No modals or auxiliaries. No complementizers. No complex sentences (embedded sentences) V&YS L2A—VP stage stage At the VP stage, we find lack of VP VP verb raising (INFL and/or CP) VP-i auxiliaries and modals VP-ii (generated in INFL) an agreement VP-i paradigm (INFL) VP-ii complementizers (CP) wh-movement (CP) L1 Aux Mod Default Kor Tur It It 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 68 75 34 (65) 29 (63) Sp Sp 8 1 5 1 74 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 stage At the VP stage, we find lack of verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (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. Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only 14%. V&YS L2A—VP stage The early Italian & Spanish files showed little in the way of adverbs, though 9/10 negative utterances had negation before the verb. The later files showed more adverbs, but no usable negation; 7/7 of the verbs preceded the adverbs (‘now’, ‘always’). It’s not completely clear where the 7/9 claim in V&YS (1996a) came from. V&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack of verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP) wh-movement (CP) No embedded clauses with complementizers. No wh-questions with a fronted wh-phrase (at least, not that requires a CP analysis). No yes-no questions with a fronted verb. V&YS L2A—TP stage After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single functional projection, which appears to be TP. Modals and auxiliaries can start there. Verb raising can take place to there. Note: the TL TP is head-final, however. Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and not yet AgrP is acquired). V&YS L2A—TP stage Characteristics of the TP stage: stage TP TP optional verb raising (to T) some auxiliaries and modals (to T) lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP yet) lack of complementizers (CP) lack of wh-movement (CP) L1 Sp Tur Aux 21 [0] Mod 9 5 Default 41 68–75 Now, Korean/Turkish speakers raise the verb around 46% of the time. 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) Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raising frequent auxiliaries and modals common agreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizers complex wh-questions attested. V&YS L2A—AgrP Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raising frequent auxiliaries and modals common agreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizers complex wh-questions attested 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. Vainikka & Young-Scholten Summary of the proposed stages Top XP VP Vmmt no aux/ modals no oblig subjs no S–V embedded agrt w/ C no no question formation no FP opt some no no no no AgrP yes yes yes yes no no 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. 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. V&YS—some implications V&YS on transfer: Under modern views, the parameters are properties of the functional heads, the XPs above VP (like TP, AgrP, and CP). If all you transfer from the L1 is the VP, you don’t expect that parameters pertaining to higher projections would transfer from the L1. For example, if having whmovement is a property of C, we wouldn’t expect (if V&YS are right) that having wh-movement would transfer from L1 to the IL. Yet we’ve seen that there is reason to believe that FrenchEnglish learners seem to transfer VT movement, which should be a property of T. In response, V&YS propose (essentially) that: anyone (regardless of their L1) will assume VT initially (for reasons they give but I won’t review). Perhaps, but it’s testable at any rate. 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. 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.) 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. 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. Paradis et al. (1998) Agr before T T Both T 3pl before and Agr at before Agr outset tense 3pl after Both 3pl tense and tense at outset 8 0 0 12 3 Past before Fut Fut before Past Both Fut and Past at outset 6 2 7 7 Agr reliably before T 3pl late (of agreements). Future late (of tenses). Paradis et al. (1998) So, the interpretation of this information might be that: (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). Review: Functional categories in L1A There is some debate concerning L1A and children’s use of functional categories. Kids start out saying sentences that tend to omit words we associate with functional categories—they often do not inflect their verbs (for tense or agreement, a property of T), they often do not use determiners (D). Some researchers take this to be evidence that kids learn lexical categories first and only later move on to using functional categories. Review: Functional categories in L1A Recently, it has become clearer that kids do seem to have access to (knowledge of) functional categories and their properties. Across many languages, kids around age 2 will sometimes use nonfinite verbs in main clauses. Once kids start using finite verbs, they put them in the right place. When the French kid uses a nonfinite verb, s/he’ll put it after a negation marker pas, and when s/he uses a finite verb, s/he’ll put it before the negation marker pas. German and L1A CP C DP C+I John ate IP I — — VP V DP lunch — Same in German. When a 2-year-old uses a finite verb, it goes in second position; when a 2year-old uses a nonfinite verb it remains at the end of the sentence (after the object). Review: Functional categories in L1A So, even though kids will sometimes use nonfinite verbs, they know the difference between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one. This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners show this effect as well. Functional categories Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is essentially the structural complexity of the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point). It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that adult native languages are quite complex, containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parametric differences stem from properties of the functional morphemes. Functional categories Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules of adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway) serves as evidence for this complex functional structure, since the verb moves into a functional head (T, for example). The evidence we just reviewed suggests very strongly that kids learning German and French produce sentences which comply with the rules of adult syntax (that make reference to this complex functional structure). Kids seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain thereto. Functional categories The question we’re about to look at is whether adult second language learners also have this same complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words? Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated with that structure (i.e. that only finite verbs move to T), we do not have evidence that their mental representation of these sentences includes the higher functional phrases like TP. Prévost and White (1999, 2000) Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this very question, and here’s what they found. Like kids do during L1A, second language learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) on the verb. When there is tense or agreement, the verb is finite (as opposed to being an infinitive). In adult/native languages, finite verbs are generally the ones that move (like in French and German). Prévost and White Prévost and White try to differentiate two possibilities of what their data might show, given that second language learners sometimes use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t. Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs. Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis. The learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive form (the verbs act finite, the functional XP’s are there, but the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). Prévost and White Possibility 1 (impairment) suggests basically no correlation between verb movement and inflection. Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite verb by using its nonfinite form) predicts that When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will definitely be (and act) finite—it will move. When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite. Prévost and White P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan Arabic, after a year) and two adults learning L2 German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for about 2 years. Prévost and White found… Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved). A(F) Z(F) A(G) Z(G) Oblig. Fin +Fin -Fin 767 243 755 224 389 45 434 85 Oblig. Nonfin -Fin +Fin 278 17 156 2 76 7 98 6 Prévost and White P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that: (These) second language learners know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbs. They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite verbs do not move. The only real errors they make are essentially lexical retrieval errors (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form. L2A and L1A One thing this tells us is that, despite possible appearances to the contrary, second language learners’ interlanguages are quite systematic and complex, and the L2 learners have the same kind of abstract structural knowledge incorporated into their IL that we can argue for in the case of L1 learners. L2A and L1 We don’t know really to what extent “UG” played a role, based only on this—after all, we know that the L1 had the full structural complexity of a natural language, including the distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A. Schwartz 1998 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. Nothing stops parameters from being reset in the IL. Let’s see if we can do what V&YS did without assuming short trees. Korean vs. Turkish Korean is strictly head-final, complements always come before the head. Turkish a mixed system, like German but perhaps even more mixed—one type of ‘that’ is head-final, one type is head-initial. Ben [[Hasan ne ye-di Ø] diye] merak et-ti-m I H. what eat-pst-3sg diye curiosity do-pst-1sg ‘I wondered what Hasan would eat.’ Duydum [ki [sen gel-ecek-sin]] I-heard that you-sg come-fut-2sg ‘I heard that you will come.’ Korean vs. Turkish CP CP C DP IP C C Spec IP I — VP I DP V+I VP V DP C I V — DP V Suppose that this is initial state… SOV stage, nonfiniteness not really an indicator of anything. Korean vs. Turkish CP CP C DP C+V+I C Spec IP IP I — I DP — VP C I VP V DP V — DP V Next stage has “optional V-movement”. Probably competing stages, addition of I-to-C; or reversal of I and VP. Empirical complaints about Minimal Trees Remember White’s (1991) Frenchspeaking learners of English. They seemed to like SVAO order, which is allowed in French because V moves to I. Makes sense on a Full Transfer view; they start out raising the V to I. Empirical complaints about Minimal Trees Doesn’t make sense on Minimal Trees— only VP is transferred, at VP stage adverb should precede everything (VP adjunct). Ok, Adv (S) V O. Now they get input: Mary always takes the metro. John carefully ate his pie. Where’s the evidence that they should now raise the verb? Not in the input! N-Adj order Parodi et al. (1997) jene drei interessanten Bücher those three interesting.pl books 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 quei tre libri interessanti those three books interesting.pl esos tres libros interesantes those three books interesting.pl 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: Adj N is the base order D German, Korean, Turkish N moves over Adj in Romance DP Spanish, Italian What did the L2’ers do learning German? D NP adjective N N … Parodis 1997—N-Adj order Bongiovanni NL I Lina I Bruno I Ana S Koreans Turks K T 3/8 1/5 3/23 0/8 1/11 9/32 17/64 0/12 7/28 0/10 1/102 0/103 N-Adj 37.5% 20.0% 13.0% 0.0% 9.1% 28.1% 26.6% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% So… So, again, 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. No nice Case results like in L1. Higher parameters seem to transfer Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate.