Acquisitional patterns of Spanish anticausative se: The end of the road

Acquisitional patterns of Spanish anticausative se: The end of the road

Inmaculada Gómez Soler

University of Memphis Abstract

The acquisition of the Spanish morpheme se has proved to be problematic for L2 learners

both because of its polyfunctionality and because of the restrictions regarding the types of

predicates with which it can combine. This paper sheds light on this problem by focusing

on a specific type of se (anticausative se; e.g., El jarrón se rompió ‘The vase broke’) and

exploring its acquisition across four proficiency levels. Results of a scalar grammaticality

judgment task indicate that lower-proficiency participants’ performance is in line with

previous research, which claims that this aspect of Spanish grammar is particularly

challenging for L2 learners (as reflected in omission and overgeneralization errors).

However, the near-native group shows sensitivity to the abstract features that uniquely

characterize verbs that undergo the causative/inchoative alternation. Thus, the current

findings suggest that L2 learners manage to overcome the problems experienced at lower

levels and, in fact, do succeed at the level of ultimate attainment.

1. Introduction

One of the indisputable differences between first and second language acquisition

is the success rate experienced by learners; that is, while L1 learners always develop

native command of all language properties (except in the case of a language disorder),

such a state is not guaranteed for L2 learners (VanPatten & Williams, 2008, among

others). On the contrary, L2 learners tend to show different degrees of proficiency at the

state of ultimate attainment (e.g., Birdsong, 2006). For those looking at this issue from a

generative perspective, the problem does not lie on L2 learners’ performance at this

advanced level but on how linguistic properties are represented at this stage, whether

these representations do in fact correspond to native representations and whether they can

be considered to be UG-constrained. The study of near-native speakers is particularly

relevant for generativists because, as Sorace (2003, p.130) claims “the competence of

near-native speakers is […] more revealing of UG constraints on L2 acquisition than

those of other stages.” Given that these learners have reached a steady state, any violation

of UG needs to be considered permanent and can not be attributed to the need of further

development, more input or more time of exposure. However, the issue of competence at

the level of ultimate attainment is a matter of debate. For Sorace (2003) optionality is a

characteristic of non-native grammars that can in fact persist to the level of ultimate

attainment (i.e., residual optionality). Optionality surfaces when two forms exist as

alternatives in the non-native grammar. However, these options are not in free variation,

that is, the target option is preferred but the non-target option can still surface

sporadically. On the other hand, there is also evidence that advanced learners can acquire

properties to a native-level, even those deemed more prone to optionality like properties

at the syntax-pragmatics interface (e.g., Rothman, 2009).

This article explores the issue of ultimate attainment by studying anticausative se in

an understudied population (i.e., near-native speakers). Se is one of the most

polyfunctional morphemes in Spanish since it encodes multiple meanings: reflexive (1),

reciprocal (2), passive, and impersonal, among others.

(1) Julia se lava

Julia se wash-3sg.

Julia washed herself

(2) Julia y Alejandro se abrazan

Julia and Alejandro se hug-3pl.

Julia and Alejandro hug each other

This article focuses on a specific use of se, its anticausative interpretation, and its

distribution with unaccusative (e.g., llegar ‘arrive’) and unergative (e.g., hablar ‘to talk’)

predicates. Anticausative se is a valency-reducing morpheme, which has the function of

suppressing the external argument (Burzio, 1986; Cinque, 1988; Grimshaw, 1990;

Reinhart & Siloni, 2005; Koontz-Garboden, 2009). This morpheme participates in the

causative/inchoative alternation by deriving the intransitive version (3) of a transitive

construction (4):

(3) El jarrón se rompió

The vase se broke

The vase broke

(4) María rompió el jarrón

María broke-3sg. the vase

María broke the vase

However, this morpheme cannot co-occur with certain types of unaccusatives (5) or

unergatives (6):

(5) *Mi hermana se llegó

Mi sister se arrived-3sg.

Mi sister arrived

(6) *María se caminó

María se walked

María walked

Although there are universal semantic restrictions on the causative/inchoative

alternation (see section 2.2.1 for a detailed explanation), the way it is encoded varies

from language to language both in the morphology used to express the distinction (e.g.,

the inchoative construction needs the use of se in Spanish while in English it does not

necessitate any additional morphology) and in the group of predicates that participate in it

(e.g., manner-of-motion verbs in English can have a causative interpretation (7) while

they cannot in Spanish (8), examples taken from Montrul (2001b, p. 174)).

(7) English:

a. The soldiers marched

b. The captain marched the soldiers to the tent

(8) Spanish

a. Los soldados marcharon

The soldiers marched-3pl.

The soldiers marched

b. *El capitán marchó a los soldados hasta el campamento

The captain marched-3sg. to the soldiers to the tents

The captain marched to the soldiers to the tent

Thus, acquiring the distribution of anticausative se with unergative and unaccusative

predicates is a complex puzzle in which the learner needs to (i) exhibit sensitivity to the

semantic nuances of verbs that are relevant for the distinction (i.e., only change-of-state

unaccusatives alternate in transitivity, section 2.2) and (ii) realize how the distinction is

marked morphologically in Spanish (se). In order to use se in a native-like manner, the

L2 learner needs to eventually develop a rule for se as an argument absorber whose

interpretation relies on the verbs’ meaning components.

This learning puzzle represents a poverty-of-the-stimulus problem (Chomsky, 1965,

1981; Pinker, 1994; Schwartz, 1998; Rothman & Iverson, 2008) since what the learner

needs to learn is underdetermined in the input for two reasons: (i) there is a one-to-many

correspondence between the morpheme se and its multiple meanings, (ii) there is

insufficient evidence to distinguish between unergatives and unaccusatives given that

there are few reliable tests for unaccusativity in Spanish (Contreras, 1978; Torrego, 1989;

de Miguel, 1992; Aranovich, 2000) and that the use of se actually only applies to a

restricted set of unaccusatives.

Previous studies have found both errors of omission of se with change-of-state

unaccusatives and overextension of se to either unaccusatives, unergatives or both. This

study explores these issues including an understudied group of learners, near-native

speakers. This way, this article will add to the literature by exploring the developmental

patterns found in the acquisition of anticausative se while, at the same time, exploring the

issue of representation in end-state grammars.

This article has the following structure. Section 2 offers background information on

the topics of unaccusativity, transitivity alternations in Spanish and the role of se in this

type of construction. It also presents a review of the L2 literature on transitivity

alternations in Spanish. Section 3 presents the motivation for the study and the research

questions. Section 4 includes a description of the participants, methodology and data

analysis. Section 5 provides a detailed discussion of the results of the study in relation to

the findings of previous work on transitivity alternations. The final section offers some

concluding remarks.

2. Background

2.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis

According to the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter, 1978) there are two types of

intransitive verbs: unergatives and unaccusatives. Unergatives take a theta-marked deep-

structure subject. This NP subject causes the action denoted by the verb (9).

(9) yo [VPcorro]

I run-1sg.

I run

Unaccusatives take a theta-marked deep-structure object. Unlike the NP argument of

unergatives, the NP argument of unaccusatives undergoes the action denoted by the verb

(10).

(10) [VP llego yo]

I arrive-1sg.

I arrive

The exact nature of this distinction is a matter of debate. For some, the distinction is

purely semantic (Dowty, 1991; Van Valin, 1990) and is related to notions of agentivity

and telicity: unergatives are agentive and atelic (activities) while unaccusatives are non-

agentive and telic (achievements). For others, the distinction is syntactic in nature

(Burzio, 1986; Rosen, 1984) and they highlight the fact that unergatives have an external

argument while the sole argument of an unaccusative predicate is internal. Yet there are

others that believe that this distinction cannot be appropriately accounted for without an

understanding of the interplay between syntax and semantics within these predicates

(Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995; Sorace, 2000) since the linking rules that map

arguments into the syntax rely on semantic notions like change (mapped to an internal

argument) or immediate cause (mapped to an external argument).

Following this idea of the interface between syntax and semantics in the

unergative/unaccusative distinction, Sorace (2000) proposed the Unaccusative Hierarchy1

(11).

According to Sorace, unergative and unaccusative predicates do not always have a

consistent syntactic behavior. On the contrary, certain types (core, those in the extremes

of the hierarchy) present a constant behavior while the peripheral ones (those in the

middle of the hierarchy) vary both within a specific language and crosslinguistically.

Peripheral predicates are sensitive to the aspectual elements of the sentence in which they                                                                                                                1 The Unaccusative Hierarchy only includes monadic verbs. Dyadic verbs such as paired/alternating unaccusatives do not appear in the hierarchy. There are two types of paired unaccusatives (Sorace, 1993), those which have a transitive alternant (‘to break’) and those that have an unergative alternant (‘to run’ since it can indicate both change of location and controlled process (motional)). This article focuses on the first class, paired unaccusatives with a transitive alternant. According to Sorace (2003), the behavior of this class is controversial because, although it indicates a change of state (telicity), the notion of causation is also relevant. Consequently, these predicates exhibit unstable behavior within particular languages and also cross-linguistically.

(11) Change of location [directed motion]

Unaccusative (least variation) selects BE

Change of state Uncontrolled process Continuation of a preexisting

state

Existence of a state variable behavior Uncontrolled process

[emission] [involuntary reaction]

Controlled processes (motional)

Controlled processes (nonmotional)

Unergative (least variation) selects HAVE

appear (such as notions of telicity and agentivity), which explains their variable behavior.

In particular, Sorace (2000) studied the behavior of unergative and unaccusative verbs

with respect to auxiliary selection in Italian for the formation of the present perfect. What

she found is that the selection of be and have as the preferred auxiliary is clear for core

unaccusatives and unergatives; with core unaccusatives always selecting be and core

unergatives always selecting have. However, auxiliary selection is considerably more

variable for those predicates towards the middle of the hierarchy, with the class

‘existence of a state’ exhibiting the most variable behavior of all. This seems to be the

case also cross-linguistically (e.g., German, Dutch, French).

2.2. Transitivity alternations in Spanish

The specific property tested in this study is the distribution of anticausative se with

unaccusative and unergative predicates. Se is a valency-reducing morpheme, which has

the function of suppressing the external argument. Although se has a multiplicity of

functions (section 2.3) here I focus on its role in the transitive-inchoative alternation. Not

all verbs alternate in transitivity. Specifically, only verbs that express change of state or

location participate in this alternation. In Spanish, the transitive version is not marked by

any morpheme, that is, it exhibits zero morphology (12). However, the inchoative

meaning is derived through the addition of the anticausative morpheme se (13).

(12) María rompió el vaso

María broke-3sg. the glass

María broke the glass

(13) El vaso se rompió

The glass se broke-3sg.

The glass broke

This morpheme, however, cannot appear with an inchoative meaning with non-

alternating unaccusatives such as verbs of directed motion (14) or verbs of appearance

(15).

(14) *Mi hermana se llegó

Mi sister se arrived-3sg.

Mi sister arrived

(15) *El terremoto se ocurrió a las 6

The earthquake se happened-3sg. at 6

The earthquake happened at 6

In this type of sentence, there is not an external cause that can be suppressed by se as

in the case of alternating unaccusatives like in (13) where se can be said to replace María,

the external causer. In the same way, these sentences do not have a transitive counterpart

(16-17).

(16) *Mi hermana llegó a María

Mi sister arrived-3sg. to María

(intended meaning: My sister caused María to arrive)

(17) *La naturaleza ocurrió el terremoto

The nature happened -3sg.the earthquake.

(intended meaning: Nature caused the earthquake to happen)

Additionally, unergatives cannot co-occur with se with an inchoative meaning

(18). And, as was the case for non-alternating unaccusatives, they also lack a transitive

version (19). This is because, although unergatives include a concept of causation, their

cause is internal rather than external like for alternating unaccusatives.

(18) *María se caminó

María se walked

María walked

(19) *María caminó al perro al parque

María walked to the dog to the park

María walked the dog to the park

2.2.1 Theoretical assumptions

In order to operationalize these concepts, I follow Reinhart’s (2000, 2002) and

Reinhart & Siloni’s (2005) feature-based approach to the theta system and

decausativization proposal. Reinhart (2002, p. 229) defines the theta system as “the

system enabling the interface between the systems of concepts and the computational

system (syntax) and, indirectly (via the syntactic representations), with the semantic

inference systems.” The theta system has two basic binary features: +/- c=Cause change

and +/-m=Mental state. The first one indicates agentivity and causation while the second

determines whether an argument is animate or inanimate. The combination of these

features creates the feature clusters presented in Table 1, which broadly correspond to

traditional labels for theta roles. It is important to notice that there is not a one-to-one

correspondence between feature clusters and θ-roles but some clusters have varying

interpretation depending on context. This is crucial for the phenomenon under

investigation in this study (the causative/inchoative alternation).

Table 1. Reinhart’s (2002) feature clusters for θ-roles Feature clusters θ-roles

[+c+m] agent

[+c-m} instrument (...)

[-c+m]

experiencer

[-c-m]

theme/patient

[+c]

Cause

[+m]

sentient (?)

[-m]

subject matter /locative source (Typically Oblique)

[-c]

goal / benefactor (Typically Dative (or PP))

[ ] Arb(itrary)

Additionally, the combination of different clusters determines different verb

classes that exhibit distinct syntactic behavior as presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Verb classes as described by Reinhart’s (2002) Verb classes Argument structure

Non-alternating transitive Eat

V ([+c+m], [-c+m])

Alternating transitive break

V ([+c], [-c-m])

Experiencer Worry

V ([+c], [-c+m])

Unaccusative break/arrive

V [-c-m]

Unergative Walk

V [+c+m]

The key difference between transitive verbs with an inchoative version (break, worry)

and those which lack this version (eat) is that, while for the former the external argument

is unspecified (it could be an unspecified cause, an agent, or an instrument) (20-21), for

the latter the external argument has a fixed interpretation (agent) (22). Thus, the

difference relies on the fact that verbs that alternate in transitivity have an external

argument that is unspecified with respect to the mental state of the argument ([+c], they

do not have a +/-m feature), which is what allows the verb to have a cause, agent or

instrument as the subject. On the other hand, verbs that do not alternate in transitivity

have an external argument ([+c, +m]) that needs to be human/animate given its +m

feature.

(20) The wind /Max /the key opened the door

(21) Max / the noise / the gun scared Lucie

(22) The baby/ *the spoon /* hunger ate the soup

The next issue that needs to be resolved is how the theta system maps from the

lexicon to the syntax. In (23-25) I present Reinhart’s (2002) operationalization of this

matter. One thing to take into account is that, following Williams (1981), she assumes

that the mapping instructions are built into the lexical entry by indices (1 marks an

external role, 2 an internal one).

(23) Lexicon marking:

Given an n-place verb-entry, n>1,

a. Mark a [-] cluster with index 2.

b. Mark a [+] cluster with index 1.

c. If the entry includes both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster [/α,/-c],

mark the verb with the ACC feature.

(24) Relevant generalizations of lexical operations:

a. Saturation and reduction apply to the marked entry (i.e., after marking).

b. Reduction eliminates the accusative feature of the verb (fully or partially).

(25) CS merging instructions.

a. When nothing rules this out, merge externally.

b. An argument realizing a cluster marked 2 merges internally; An argument

with a cluster marked 1 merges externally.

First, I present how unergatives are mapped onto the syntax following Reinhart’s

(2002). According to this system, the sole argument of an unergative verb [+c+m] would

merge externally following (25a) given that (23) only applies to entries with more than

one argument. Second, I present how the transitive/inchoative alternation is

operationalized within this system. Following Chierchia (1989), Reinhart (2000, 2002)

argues that the inchoative version is derived from the transitive one. The derivation starts

with a lexical entry such as (26a) which corresponds to a verb that alternates in

transitivity (e.g., break, V ([+c], [-c-m])). According to (23) the [+] cluster ([+c]) is

marked with a 1 and the [-] cluster ([-c-m]) with a 2. Then, the inchoative version is

derived through a reduction operation (expletivization (Reinhart, 2002), renamed

decausativization in Reinhart & Siloni (2005)) by which the external role gets suppressed

(26b). For Reinhart (2002) and Reinhart & Siloni (2005), the eliminated role is not

available in the syntactic structure or interpretation of the derived inchoative version (cf.

Koontz-Garboden (2009) for an opposing view).

(26) Expletivization: Reduction of an external [+c] role (semantically null

function)

a. Vacc (θ1[+c], θ2)à Re(V) (θ2)

b. Re(V) (θ2) = V(θ2)

This operation takes places in all verb classes with a [+c] argument. Thus, it applies

to transitive alternators like break as well as experiencer verbs. However, the derived

entries are quite different, (27) being unaccusative and (28) being unergative.

(27) openacc ([+c], [-c-m]à Re(open)[-c-m]

a. Max opened the door

b. The door opened

(28) worryacc ([+c], [-c+m] à Re(worry)[-c+m]

a. The doctor worried Max

b. Max worried

The remaining question is how basic unaccusatives (non-alternating unaccusatives,

e.g., arrive) are mapped into the syntax in this system. Reinhart (2000, p. 23) assumes,

following Chierchia (1989), that unaccusatives without a transitive counterpart are

derived from some abstract transitive verb.2 The crucial evidence for Reinhart’s (2000, p.

22-23) approach comes from the existence of causative versions of these verbs

crosslinguistically:

come and die don't have alternates in English. However, the Hebrew verb for bring is the

transitive alternate of come, with the same stem but a different verbal morphology (hevi

(brought)/ ba (come)). Same is true for die (met (died) /hemit (killed)). Chierchia notes

that grow, which in English has both entries, has only the unaccusative entry in Italian

(crescere).

In this section I have shown that the feature [+c] is key for transitivity alternations

cross-linguistically. Consequently, access to this feature will define L2 learner success in                                                                                                                2 Levin & Rappaport-Hovav’s (1995) solution to this problem is quite different: they claim this set of verbs (basic unaccusatives) is listed in the lexicon since their lexical entry is frozen as a reduced form.

the learning task as outlined in the next section.

2.3. The learnability problem

The problem faced by the L2 learner when trying to acquire anticausative se is

extremely complex for several reasons. First, the learner needs to exhibit sensitivity to the

semantic nuances of verbs that are relevant for the distinction. In particular, as shown in

the previous section, learners need to restrict transitivity alternations only to those verbs

with a [+c] argument. Extracting this type of information from the input seems unlikely

since learners would have to notice the lack of a transitive alternative for basic

unaccusatives (29) and unergatives (30). Thus, the learner would not count with positive

L2 evidence in order to restrict his grammar. Instead, he will have to rely on noticing the

absence of an ungrammatical form, in this case, the transitive version of unergatives and

unaccusatives.

(29) *Mi hermana llegó a María

Mi sister arrived-3sg. to María

(intended meaning: My sister caused María to arrive)

(30) *María caminó al perro al parque

María walked to the dog to the park

María walked the dog to the park

Second, even when the learner is sensitive to the abstract [+c] feature that

distinguishes predicates that alternate in transitivity, he still needs to ascertain how this

distinction is marked morphologically in the L2. This poses an additional complication

having to do with the multiplicity of functions of se in Spanish (Kempchinsky, 2004;

King & Suñer, 2007). Se is a morpheme whose function is related to argument structure

alternations. However, se’s specific meaning and role changes depending on the type of

predicate that it modifies and the thematic roles involved in the construction. In (31-36) I

present some of the functions of se in Spanish as described by Toth (2000, p. 179-180)

(examples are my own):

(31) Reflexive se (can be used with transitive verbs and alternators)

Ana se lava el pelo por la mañana

Ana se washes the hair for the morning

Ana washes her hair in the morning

(32) Reciprocal se (can be used with transitive verbs and alternators)

Ana y Sofía se saludaron durante el banquete

Ana and Sofía se greeted during the banquet

Ana and Sofía greeted each other during the banquet

(33) Passive se (can be used with transitive verbs and alternators)

Se alquilan apartamentos en la playa

Se rent-3pl. apartments in the beach

Apartments are rented at the beach

(34) Impersonal se (can be used with all types of verbs)

Se vive mejor en España

Se live-3sg. better in Spain

One lives better in Spain

(35) Anticausative se (can be used with alternators)

Se rompió el vaso

Se broke-3sg. the glass

The glass broke

(36) Verb of emotion se (can be used with causative psych-verbs)

Marina se enfadó con su hermana

Marina se got mad with her sister

Marina got mad at her sister

Zyzik (2006) includes some additional functions, which are somewhat more restricted

in scope:

(37) Intransitive dynamic se (to indicate a change of meaning with certain

intransitives)

El coche se salió de la carretera

The car se go out of the road

The car went off the road

(38) Aspectual se (to indicate telicity with transitive verbs)

Se tomaron todo el vino

Se take-3pl. all the wine

They drank up all the wine

(39) Inherent (with a small class of inherent reflexive verbs)

Luis se queja de la tarea

Luis se complain-3sg. about the homework

Luis complains about the homework

The problem for the L2 learner is that, although non-alternating unaccusatives and

unergatives cannot co-occur with anticausative se, they can in fact co-occur with other

types of se. Example (40) illustrates an unergative predicate with reflexive se while (41-

42) are examples of an unergative and an unaccusative predicate co-occurring with

impersonal se.

(31) Se habló a sí misma mirándose al espejo

Se talked-3sg. to herself looking-herself at the mirror

She talked to herself while looking at herself in the mirror

(32) No se habla mientras se come

No se talk-3sg. while se eat-3sg.

One doesn't talk when one eats

(33) A esta clase no se llega tarde

To this class no se arrive-3sg. late

One does not arrive late to this class

Consequently, a surface string [se+VP] corresponds to multiple meanings in

Spanish. If the L2 learner were in fact using pattern learning to deduce a rule for se,

forms like (40-42) could guide him into the incorrect assumption that se can freely co-

occur with unergatives and unaccusatives as well as alternators (however, (5-6) indicate

anticausative se cannot co-occur with basic unaccusatives and unergatives). This could

lead to an overgeneralization problem. But how would the learner recover from this

overgeneralization stage? Were the learner not guided by some universal semantic

restrictions (in this case, sensitivity to the [+c] argument), recovering from this type of

phase would be extremely challenging. This is because, as mentioned, the learner would

need to use negative evidence (i.e., absence of a transitive alternative for basic

unaccusatives and unergatives) to deduce a rule for anticausative se. White, (1991, 2003)

argues that in these types of scenarios in which positive evidence is not available to

restructure a lexical entry, direct negative evidence might be necessary.

2.4. L2 studies on transitivity alternations

There are several studies that focus on transitivity alternations in L2 Spanish from

different perspectives (generative, constructivist, pedagogical) that highlight certain

trends pertinent to the current project. First of all, L2 learners showed a clear tendency to

overgeneralize se to contexts in which it is disallowed. Example (34) represents an

overextension of se with non-alternating unaccusatives and (35) illustrates an

overextension with unergatives.

(34) Julia se llegó

Julia se arrived-3sg.

Julia arrived

(35) Julia se nadó

Julia se nadó-3sg

Julia swam

Both Toth (2000) and Toth & Guijarro-Fuentes (2013), in two pedagogical-

intervention studies of se for Anglophone learners, found that when L2 learners

overgeneralized se, they significantly favored unaccusatives over unergatives. This

showed that learners were taking se as a marker of non-agentive subjects. Consequently,

because se is a marker of non-agentivity for these learners, they did not overextend se to

unergatives. They concluded then that L2 learners did not present a wild grammar but

that their overgeneralization was the product of an incorrect analysis of the function of se.

Therefore, they took this data to indicate that L2 learners are sensitive to different classes

of predicates, which supports the view of the facilitating role of UG in L2 acquisition. On

the contrary, Montrul (1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b) in her series of seminal studies on

English, Spanish and Turkish, found an overgeneralization trend (by English learners of

Spanish) consisting of overusing se with both non-alternating unaccusatives and

unergatives. She took this to mean that learners interpreted se as a marker of

intransitivity. As in the studies just mentioned, she also argued this was a sign of a UG-

constrained interlanguage grammar. Additionally, Cabrera and Zubizarreta (2003)

distinguished two types of learners: conservative and creative. For them, conservative

learners are those who do not overgeneralize. Conversely, creative learners

overgeneralize either to just non-alternating unaccusatives or to both non-alternating

unaccusatives and unergatives. Notice that no learner overgeneralized just to unergatives.

Also, within the learners who overgeneralized with both verb classes, those who

overgeneralized more with unaccusatives outnumbered those who overgeneralized more

with unergatives.

Secondly, another pattern reported in previous L2 studies is the omission of se in

inchoative constructions (35).

(35) *El jarrón rompió

The vase broke-3sg.

The vase broke

Montrul (1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b) considered this phenomenon a natural

consequence of the influence of L1 morphological patterns. She argued that L2 learners

whose L1s have zero-derived morphology will reject L2 patterns that have an overt

morphological marker (e.g., English learners of Spanish omitting se with inchoative

constructions). Toth (2000), Toth and Guijarro-Fuentes (2013), and Zyzik (2006) found

evidence for the omission of se in inchoative constructions, which they also ascribed to

L1 transfer effects.

Finally, there are different hypotheses as to how learners start recovering from

these overgeneralization and omission problems and how developmental advances take

place. A combination of learner-external factors (form-focused communicative

instruction) (e.g., Toth, 2000) and learner-internal factors (UG, L1 transfer) (e.g.,

Montrul, 2001b; Toth & Guijarro-Fuentes, 2013) have been argued to shape L2 learners’

acquisition. For Cabrera and Zubizarreta (2005) the progress of the learner is related to

how he can make use of different types of transfer: proficient learners can transfer

specific lexical properties of verbs instead of simply transferring constructional

properties.

Zyzik (2006) explored the problem of transitivity alternations from a constructivist

approach. Adhering to the concept of sequence learning (Ellis 1996, 2002), she argued

that learning the causative alternation in Spanish indeed takes place verb-by-verb, which

means that learners make use of prototypes in their learning process. At more advanced

stages, L2 learners are able to extract se from the individual lexical items and start using

the morpheme (semi-)productively although omission problems remain.

Neither of the studies mentioned above included data from highly proficient learners,

though few studies have looked at use of anticausative se in more advanced learners.

Bruhn de Garavito (1999, 2011) studied impersonal passives and inchoatives at the near-

native stage. Particularly, she explored whether L2 learners were sensitive to the different

properties that the NP argument of these constructions exhibits: object properties in the

case of impersonal passives and subject properties with inchoatives. Her findings showed

that near-natives actually converged with native speakers. Tremblay (2006) is a

replication of Bruhn de Garavito (1999). She argued that advanced learners still have

difficulties with these constructions. Similarly, Toth (1999) claimed that the advanced

learners in his study still showed problems omitting se with alternating unaccusatives.

However, because their subjects were college students taking a 6-8th semester course,

they are not representative of a steady state. Thus, target-like behavior could still be

considered plausible.

3. Motivation and research questions

This study is inspired by the issues that motivated previous generative research

but applied to an understudied pool of subjects (i.e., near-native speakers). The guiding

theoretical issues are whether these highly proficient speakers are able to achieve native

proficiency and whether their grammar is constrained by UG at the final stage of

acquisition. Additionally, the issue of L1 transfer in the acquisition of argument-changing

morphology will be studied both developmentally and at the level of ultimate attainment.

If near-native grammars are UG-constrained, we expect L2 learners’ sensitivity

to the [+c] argument to show in their appropriate ratings of alternating unaccusatives with

se and unergatives and non-alternating unaccusatives without se. Certain non-target

patterns could also reveal a UG-constrained grammar which is, however, not native-like.

These could be: (i) overgeneralization of se to unaccusatives if se is considered a marker

of non-agentivity, (ii) overgeneralization of se to both unaccusatives and unergatives if se

is considered a maker of intransitivity and (iii) omission of se with alternating

unaccusatives, which could suggest L1 transfer.

Apart from Bruhn de Garavito (1999, 2011), this is the only study on transitivity

alternations that focuses on near-native speakers. However, the specific constructions

tested in those studies are different from the ones that I explored in the current paper

(subject and object properties of the NP argument of inchoatives and impersonal passives

vs. presence/absence of se with unergatives and unaccusatives in inchoative

constructions). Furthermore, the participants tested in most of the previous studies ranged

only from beginner to intermediate (Montrul, 1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Toth, 2000;

Cabrera & Zubizarreta, 2003, 2005) or advanced (Zyzik, 2006; Toth & Guijarro-Fuentes,

2013; Toth, 1999; Tremblay, 2006). In the current study, the lower-level participants

were taking an advanced grammar and composition course, which was a sixth/seventh

semester course for majors and minors; the most proficient learners were Spanish

instructors and teaching assistants, many of whom classified as near-native speakers.

Thus, this study allows us to uncover questions left unanswered in the previous literature

by looking at end-state grammars.

In particular, I explore the following research questions in the current study:

RQ1: Do L2 learners distinguish sentences with se and without se with respect to

alternating unaccusatives, non-alternating unaccusatives and unergatives

respectively?

RQ2: Do L2 learners make overgeneralization errors? This question is divided

into two sub-questions:

a. Do they incorrectly include se with non-alternating unaccusatives and/or

unergatives?

b. If they do, is overgeneralization only restricted to one class (only with

non-alternating unaccusatives or only with unergatives)?

RQ3: Do L2 learners make errors of omission with se? Do they incorrectly omit

se with alternating unaccusatives?

4. The study

4.1. Participants

Thirty-six monolingual Spanish speakers from Spain volunteered as the control

group. They were all college educated and had only been in contact with English

sporadically during vacation. The experimental group (N=65) was composed of college

students who were tested in a large public research university in the Southeast of the

United States. All the participants in the experimental group had been exposed to Spanish

after puberty (average14-years-old) and had learned Spanish in a classroom setting.

Additionally, some of them had spent some time in Spanish-speaking countries through

study-abroad programs. Only speakers whose L1 was English were considered for the

study. L2 learners were classified into 4 proficiency groups according to their score in a

subsection of the DELE (Diploma de Español como Lengua Extranjera/Diploma of

Spanish as a Foreign Language).3 The test included both a multiple-choice vocabulary

section and a fill-in-the-blank grammar section. Table 3 summarizes information about

the participants.

Table 3. Participants’ profiles Proficiency Number

Description

Control 36 Native speakers Near-natives

16

Spanish instructors and teaching assistants

Advanced 21 Spanish instructors and teaching assistants Intermediate

16

6/7th semester course college students

                                                                                                               3 This measure has been used extensively by other generative L2 researchers (see the work of Cuza, Rothman, or Montrul among others).

Low

12

6/7th semester course college students

4.2. Methodology

This study consisted of a scalar grammaticality judgment task (GJT) and it was

conducted in PsyScope (Cohen, MacWhinney, Flatt, & Provost, 19934). It is part of a

series of 5 experimental tasks that were conducted together (the results of which have

been reported in other articles). The order of the 5 tasks was randomized.

Each participant received a set of instructions before starting the task and

conducted a training trial. Judgments were based on a 5-point Likert scale to determine

how natural each sentence sounded to participants (with 1 being the most unnatural and 5

being the most natural). Participants provided judgments to 24 experimental sentences

and 24 distractors. All items were randomized. Out of the 24 critical items, 12 contained

alternating unaccusatives, 6 included non-alternating unaccusatives and 6 had unergative

predicates. Half of the sentences in each category were grammatical and half were

ungrammatical. Each participant judged all of the experimental items (both grammatical

and ungrammatical) and saw each sentence once. Each verb was seen twice one in an

ungrammatical sentence and one in its grammatical counterpart but, since the items were

randomized, the grammatical and ungrammatical versions were not presented together.

The task proceeded as follows: a brief paragraph serving as context showed up in

the computer screen. The subject had to read the paragraph and press any key to make it                                                                                                                4 “PsyScope is a program to design and run psychological experiments, used by many experimental labs. It runs on Apple Macintosh computers. It has been developed at Carnegie Mellon by Jonathan Cohen, Matthew Flatt, Brian MacWhinney and Jefferson Provost for Mac OS 9 in the '90s. Thanks to its creators, its code has been made public, under the GNU GPL license. It has been ported to OS X thanks to a collective effort to which several labs kindly contributed. It is now being developed by the SISSA Language, Cognition and Development Lab at Sissa, the RICO group at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, and many volunteers.” (http://psy.ck.sissa.it)

disappear. Each context was followed by a single sentence, (although the context for the

grammatical and the ungrammatical versions of each sentence pair was the same). The

software did not allow subjects to go back or change their answers.

Example (36) illustrates two of the critical items in the experiment with an

alternating unaccusative predicate. Example (36a) represents the incorrect version

without se and (36b) is the correct version with se.

(36) Mi hijo estaba jugando al fútbol en el jardín. Cuando tiró la pelota a la pared, vi

la pelota yendo directamente a la ventana

My son was playing soccer in the backyard. When he threw the ball to the wall, I

saw the ball going straight to the window

a. La ventana rompió

The window broke-3sg.

b. La ventana se rompió

The window se broke-3sg.

The windows broke

The rationale for choosing the specific verbs used in this task is based on the fact

that not all unergative and unaccusative verbs are created equal, since, as I have

illustrated, some show more consistent behavior than others (Sorace, 1993, 2000).

Consequently, I chose one core unaccusative, one less core unaccusative and one

peripheral unaccusative as well as one core, one less core and one peripheral unergative.

This was done to ensure that there was a balance of categories.5 The exact classification

per category is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Unaccusative and unergative predicates tested in the GJT                                                                                                                5 Other elements such as sentence length or predicate frequency were not controlled.  

Unacc/Unerg Core/Periphery Category Predicates tested

Unaccusative Core Change of location llegar ‘to arrive’ Less core Change of state romperse ‘to break’

ensuciarse ‘to get dirty’ cansarse ‘to get tired’ derretirse ‘to melt’ ponerse rojo ‘to blush’ concentrarse ‘to get focused’

Continuation of pre-existing state

durar ‘to last’

Periphery Existence of state existir ‘to exist’ Periphery Uncontrolled

process llorar ‘to cry’

Less core Controlled process (motional)

nadar ‘to swim’

Unergative Core Controlled process (non-motional)

hablar ‘to talk’

4.3. Results

A 2 (SE) x 3 (VERB TYPE) x 5 (GROUP) mixed ANOVA was conducted to

assess participants’ judgments of sentences with or without anticausative se with respect

to three different verb types (alternating unaccusatives, non-alternating unaccusatives and

unergatives). The output reveals a high order interaction between VERB TYPE * SE *

GROUP (F (8, 186)=52.8, p=.000). There are also interactions between VERB TYPE *

SE (F (2, 186)=969.2, p=.000) and between SE * GROUP (F (4, 93)=6.1, p=.000). These

significant interactions were examined via a series of LSD post-hoc tests described

below. There is a main effect for SE (F (1, 93)=230.5, p=.000).

Figures 1 and 2 give us a snapshot of the results. Figure 1 illustrates the results for

sentences with anticausative se. What we can see is that, as proficiency increases, there is

a sharp decrease in the ratings of se with unergatives and non-alternating unaccusatives.

At the same time, there is an increase in the ratings of se with alternating unaccusatives.

Figure 1. Results for sentences with anticausative se

Figure 2 illustrates the results for sentences without se and shows the opposite

trends: sentences without se seem to be increasingly rejected with alternating

unaccusatives while they are increasingly accepted with unergatives and non-alternating

unaccusatives.

Figure 2. Results for sentences without anticausative se

In order to answer the first research question (Do learners distinguish sentences

with se and without se with respect to alternating unaccusatives, non-alternating

unaccusatives and unergatives respectively?), I compared subjects’ ratings of sentences

with and without unaccusative se with alternating unaccusatives (Table 5), non-

alternating unaccusatives (Table 6) and unergatives (Table 7) respectively to determine

whether they made a statistically significant distinction between grammatical and

ungrammatical sentences.

The results are extremely similar for the three types of predicates. With

alternating unaccusatives (Table 5), both natives (p=.000) and L2 learners clearly

distinguished between sentences with and without anticausative se showing a preference

for the former (near-natives: p=.000; advanced: p=.000; intermediate: p=.000; low:

p=.011). However, it is also obvious that the groups with lower proficiency showed less

definite (although significant) distinctions.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for alternating unaccusatives Natives Near-natives Advanced Intermediate Low

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

se 4.9 .194

4.67 .33 4.75 .26 4.26 .51 3.96 .65

no se 1.14 .26 1.85 .75 2.09 .68 2.9 .74 3.4 .31

In table 6, I present participants’ ratings of sentences with and without

anticausative se with non-alternating unaccusative predicates. Again, the control group

exhibited a very definite distinction between grammatical (i.e., items without se) and

ungrammatical sentences (i.e., items with se) (p=.000). The L2 learners also showed a

statistically significant distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical items (near-

natives: p=.000; advanced: p=.000; intermediate: p=.000; low: p=.008). Again, the

intermediate and low-proficiency group did not make as sharp of a distinction as native

speakers and the most advanced L2 learner groups did.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for non-alternating unaccusatives Natives Near-natives Advanced Intermediate Low

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

se 1.07 .25

1.43 .97 1.61 .74 3.13 1.14 3.33 1.14

no se 4.96 1.07 4.78 .56 4.9 .21 4.55 .73 4.18 .5

Table 7 shows the ratings participants gave to unergative predicates6 embedded in

                                                                                                               6 A reviewer points out that a possible concern for the unergative group is the verb hablar (e.g. to talk): this

sentences with and without the anticausative morpheme se. The results are in line with

those for non-alternating unaccusatives. The control group showed a very definite

distinction between the two types of test sentences: sentences with anticausative se

received close to the lowest possible score and those without anticausative se were rated

as almost perfect. This distinction is statistically significant (p=.000). This distinction

among sentences with and without anticausative se was paralleled in the L2 learners who

also showed statistically significant distinctions (p=.000). As we saw with the two

previous classes, the lower-level L2 learners did not make a distinction as definite as the

other groups.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for unergatives Natives Near-natives Advanced Intermediate Low

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         verb could have led some participants to accept constructions such as se habla as having a reflexive

meaning, which is not possible with nadar and llorar. Although this is in fact possible, this was not the

case in the current project. First of all, the context provided clearly indicated the subject was not talking to

herself (Rosario no estaba contenta con la nota de su examen así que fue a la oficina de su profesor

‘Rosario was not happy with the grade of her test so she went to her professor’s office’). Additionally, in

order to make sure hablar was not skewing the results, a reliability measure was conducted. A Cronbach's

Alpha of .711 indicates that the scale was in fact highly reliable. The means for these items are in fact very

similar (hablar ‘to talk’: M=1.75, SD=1.14; llorar ‘to cry’: M=2.01, SD=1.45; nadir ‘to swim’: M=2,

SD=1.3). A within-subjects ANOVA indicates that there is not a significant difference among the means

(F (2, 192)=2.15, p=.119). Additionally we can see that Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted is .547, so

deleting hablar from the scale would decrease scale reliability. Corrected Item-Total Correlation is also low

(.588). We can conclude then that not only is hablar a reliable item in the scale but it actually improves

scale reliability.

se 1.24 .43 1.7 .71 1.9 .93 2.9 1.22 2.96 .87

no se 4.95 .14 4.9 .15 4.79 .3 4.55 .51 4.42 .39

Research question 2 (Do L2 learners make overgeneralization errors? Do they

incorrectly accept se with non-alternating unaccusatives and/or unergatives? If they do, is

the overgeneralization only restricted to one class (only with non-alternating

unaccusatives or only with unergatives)?) is a multifaceted question that requires

examining two types of contrasts. First, to see whether there is an overgeneralization

pattern in general, I compared subject ratings of sentences with se with alternating

unaccusatives to their ratings of the same type of sentences with unergatives and non-

alternating unaccusatives respectively. LSD post hocs indicate that that all groups clearly

distinguished between alternating unaccusatives and non-alternating unaccusatives

(control: p=.000; near-native: p=.000; advanced: p=.000; intermediate: p=.000 low:

p=.009). and between alternating unaccusatives and unergatives respectively since both

contrasts are significant (control: p=.000; near-native: p=.000; advanced: p=.000;

intermediate: p=.000; low: p=.043). This is what we expect since sentences with se are

grammatical with alternating unaccusatives and ungrammatical with the other two

classes. However, what we also see is that, even if the contrast is significant between

these classes, the ratings of intermediate and low proficiency speakers for non-alternating

unaccusatives and unergatives are quite high (slightly below or above 3). This means that

they do not show a complete rejection of se with these classes, which could indicate some

overextension.7

                                                                                                               7 As a reviewer points out, this could suggest a lack of confidence in their ability to judge something as ungrammatical. The reviewer argues that this kind of behavior is typical of beginning and intermediate

Second, to determine whether each individual group overextends se to different

degrees with unergatives and unaccusatives, I contrasted participants’ ratings of

sentences with se with these two types of predicates. In theory, we would expect L2

learners to make no significant distinctions since anticausative se is equally

ungrammatical with unergatives and non-alternating unaccusatives. However, there are

two significant contrasts, one for the low-proficiency group and one for the advanced

group (control: p=.088; near-native: p=.058; advanced: p=.034; intermediate: p=.192;

low: p=.043). The low-proficiency group showed a preference towards unaccusatives

while the advanced learners showed a slight preference towards unergatives. The

relevance of this finding will be examined in the Discussion section.

Finally, in order to answer research question 3 (Do L2 learners make errors of

omission with se? Do they incorrectly omit se with change-of-state unaccusatives?) I

contrasted subject ratings of sentences without se with alternating unaccusatives to their

ratings of the same type of sentences with non-alternating unaccusatives and unergatives

respectively. LSD post hocs indicate that the contrast between alternating unaccusatives

and non-alternating unaccusatives is significant for all groups (control: p=.000; near-

native: p=.000; advanced: p=.000; intermediate: p=.000; low: p=.001) as is the contrast

between alternating unaccusatives and unergatives (control=.000; near-native=.000;

advanced=.000; intermediate=.000; low=.000). Nevertheless, again, we see that

intermediate and low-proficiency learners have a high rate of acceptance of alternating

unaccusatives without se, which is completely ungrammatical. This fact suggests transfer

from English, which has zero morphology for the inchoative construction.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         learners who only weakly reject things they are nor terribly sure of. Data from a production task from the same learners would be needed to confirm this fact.

5. Discussion

This study examined how L2 learners across four proficiency levels acquired

argument-structure changing morphology; particularly, Spanish anticausative morpheme

se. I focused on three main research questions, which I answer by analyzing the results of

the current study while comparing them with the findings of previous researchers. The

research questions are repeated below for convenience:

RQ1: Do L2 learners distinguish sentences with se and without se with respect to

alternating unaccusatives, non-alternating unaccusatives and unergatives

respectively?

RQ2: Do L2 learners make overgeneralization errors? This question is divided

into two sub-questions:

a. Do they incorrectly include se with non-alternating unaccusatives and/or

unergatives?

b. If they do, is overgeneralization only restricted to one class (only with

non-alternating unaccusatives or only with unergatives)?

RQ3: Do L2 learners make errors of omission with se? Do they incorrectly omit

se with change-of-state unaccusatives?

With respect to research question 1, it is clear from the results that learners across all

proficiency levels performed similarly to the native speakers by making significant

distinctions between sentences with se and sentences without se in the three predicate

classes (refer back to Tables 5-7). What is also true is that intermediate and low-

proficiency learners showed distinctions that, although statistically significant, were

much less clear-cut than those of the more advanced learners. This shows that the least

proficient groups have more indeterminate judgments than the most proficient ones.

In order to answer research question 2, we need to look back to Figure 1/Tables 6-7.

All proficiency groups made a statistically significant distinction between non-alternating

unaccusatives and alternating unaccusatives, and between non-alternating unaccusatives

and unergatives. This indicates that they treat them as different classes of verbs and

respect their morphosyntactic make-up. However, it is important to highlight the behavior

of lower proficiency learners. Although these learners made statistical significant

distinctions, they gave mean ratings of about 3 to sentences with se with non-alternating

unaccusatives (El tren se llegó ‘The train arrived’) and unergatives (María se lloró

delante de todos ‘María cried in front of everyone’). This means that, for some learners,

these ungrammatical sentences are indeed grammatical. Therefore, we see a certain

overextension of se.

When the overgeneralization pattern was explored further and participants’ ratings of

sentences with se with unergatives and unaccusatives were contrasted; we found that

while intermediate, near-natives and native speakers made no significant distinctions

between these classes; low-proficiency and advanced learners did. In the case of the

lower-proficiency group, what we see is that they overextended se significantly more

with unaccusatives than with unergatives. This replicates Toth’s (1999, 2000) and Toth &

Guijarro-Fuentes’s (2013) findings. This pattern indicates that the grammars of the low-

proficiency group, although deviant from native grammars, are still UG-constrained:

given that alternating and non-alternating unaccusatives belong to the same semantic

class, these participants could be using se as a marker of non-agentive subjects. This

would explain why alternating and non-alternating unaccusatives patterned together

while unergatives, which have agentive subjects, did not. The behavior of the advanced

learners is undoubtedly more surprising since they exhibited a preference for unergatives.

However, even if the contrast between unergatives and unaccusatives in the se condition

is significant, the means for these categories are remarkably similar (unergatives M=1.9;

non-alternating unaccusatives M=1.61). What is important to notice is that, while the

contrast is significant, still both verb types are regarded as ungrammatical with se since

the means are considerably below 3. Additionally, it needs to be highlighted that no

group overgeneralized se just to unergative predicates.

As previously discussed, the learners at the intermediate and low-proficiency level of

this study are more proficient than most of the learners tested in the previous studies on

transitivity alternations (e.g., Toth, 2000) and at a similar level to Zyzik’s (2006) most

advanced group, among others. Hence, this finding confirms the claims of previous

researchers with regard to the difficulty of acquiring the morpheme se (particularly,

anticausative se) at lower levels of language development. The findings of this study also

answer questions left unanswered by previous research with respect to the behavior of

more proficient learners. What we see here is that the more advanced L2 learners (i.e.,

near-native group) do eventually overcome the problems with anticausative se and

respect the distribution of this morpheme according to predicate type since they do not

exhibit problems of overgeneralization.

Finally, in order to answer research question 3, I refer the reader to Figure 2/Table 5,

which show that all L2 learner groups distinguished between alternating unaccusatives

and non-alternating unaccusatives, and between alternating unaccusatives and

unergatives. However, again we see that, at a descriptive level, intermediate and low-

proficiency speakers differ from the other groups. They gave alternating unaccusatives in

sentences without anticausative se (e.g., La ventana rompió ‘The window broke’) an

approximate average rating of 3, which means that some learners incorrectly accepted

these sentences as grammatical. These learners seemed to be following L1 patterns of

zero derivation; hence, this represents a case of L1 transfer since in English the

inchoative form is not marked with a specific morpheme. This confirms Montrul’s ideas

(2001a) about the role of the L1 in this type of constructions; namely, that L2 learners

whose L1s lack an overt morpheme to express a certain meaning will tend to accept

sentences that show zero morphology and reject those with overt morphology. We see

these trends but only to a certain extent with the least proficient learners.

This article also taps on the topic of the representation of grammar at the level of

ultimate attainment, which is a matter of interest in generative L2 acquisition (e.g.,

Sorace, 2003; Valenzuela, 2006). In particular, Sorace (1993) has proposed three

different states for near-native grammars:

• native-like: when learner representations converge with native representations;

• divergent: when the learner representations diverge from native representations,

learners have determinate judgments but they go in a different direction from

native speaker judgments (optionality is a subtype here);

• incomplete: when learners show indeterminate intuitions.

The near-native group in this study behaves at a native-like level with respect to the

distribution of anticausative se with unergative and unaccusative predicates: not only do

they make the same distinctions than native speakers but they also make them with the

same degree of definiteness. Therefore, their judgments are determinate and in the same

direction than native speaker judgments, which indicates that these learners have

representations convergent with native speakers. This contrasts with the findings from the

advanced learners in Toth (1999) and Tremblay (2006) who still exhibited certain

difficulties with se. However, as argued earlier, these learners’ grammars were not

representative of the steady state because, although the learners were highly proficient,

their interlanguages were still in development.8

I contend that the behavior of near-natives in the current study cannot be a purely

surface phenomenon, that is, near-native performance cannot be the result of replication

of input patterns, but it necessarily has to be an indication of their underlying linguistic

representations. As claimed in Reinhart (2002) and Reinhart and Siloni (2005), verbs that

undergo decausativization need to have a [+c] argument. As described in section 2.2.1,

this applies to verbs like break and psychological verbs like worry (37-38):

(37) María preocupó a Juan

María worried-3sg. to Juan

María worried Juan

(38) Juan se preocupó

Juan se worried-3sg.

Juan worried

Interestingly, not only did the participants in this experiment show sensitivity to the

[+c] argument of alternators such as romper ‘to break’ as shown in their ratings in the

current GJT, but the same group of participants also showed sensitivity to [+c] with

                                                                                                               8 In these studies, no particular proficiency measures were used to classify participants. They were placed into a specific proficiency group depending on the Spanish class on which they were enrolled at the time of testing. This approach is problematic because of the varying levels of proficiency we can encounter in students enrolled in the same class.

psychological verbs in a different task reported in Gómez Soler (2013, 2014). This

provides evidence that access to this abstract feature helped these L2 learners understand

decausativization productively with different types of predicates (i.e., alternators and

psych-verbs).

Advocates of connectionist and usage-based models (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009;

Ellis, O'Donnell & Römer, 2013) could argue that acquisition of se takes place with the

learner tallying inductively examples of sentences with and without se from the input.

Conversely, I put forth the argument that input is indeed insufficient for the acquisition of

this complex phenomenon and that access to the abstract features that compose the

thematic structure of verbs is a necessary requirement for successful acquisition. Given

that unergatives and non-alternating unaccusatives cannot co-occur with anticausative se

but can in fact co-occur with other types of se such as impersonal se (A esta clase no se

llega tarde ‘One does not arrive late to this class’), the input could lead to

overgeneralization patterns. In order for the learner to recover from this

overgeneralization, he would need to notice the absence of transitive alternatives for non-

alternating unaccusatives and unergatives in the input. It would be these structures the

ones that would allow him to discover that alternating unaccusatives do alternate in

transitivity while other types of intransitives do not. As argued by White (1991, 2003), it

is highly unlikely that the L2 learner is able to restructure his grammar based on this type

of indirect negative evidence were he guided by input alone. Another argument to support

L2 learners’ access to abstract semantic features as guiding forces in the acquisition

process of anticausative se is the fact that L2 learners do not exhibit a wild grammar.

That is, L2 learners’ linguistic representations are UG-constrained since they do not

violate UG principles. We can see this in their overgeneralization patterns: the lower-

proficiency group overextended se significantly more with unaccusatives than with

unergatives. As discussed, this suggests that participants take se as a marker of non-

agentivity. Thus, this is an indication that participants are sensitive to the semantic

similarities between alternating and non-alternating unaccusatives. On the other hand, we

would not expect unergatives to be the sole target of overgeneralization since they do not

share semantic aspects with alternating unaccusatives. In fact, we do not see this in any

group, that is, no group overgeneralized just to unergatives (as I argued, even if the

advanced speakers showed a significant distinction between unergatives and

unaccusatives, they still rated both classes below 2 and they did not isolate unergatives).

What is also evidenced in the data from near-natives is that transfer of L1

morphological properties (i.e., alternating unaccusatives without se) has been overcome

at the level of near- nativeness. Toth (1999) reported that his advanced participants were

unable to expunge this specific L1 pattern from their grammars. However, given that

Toth’s participants were not at the stage of ultimate attainment, what the current study

indicates is that highly proficient learners are able to make use of lexical properties of

verbs and are sensitive to the distribution of se with these different classes of predicates,

regardless of the hindering effect that L1 transfer could have at lower levels of

proficiency.

Consequently, this area of Spanish grammar, the acquisition of anticausative se, does

not seem to be subject to fossilization at the near-native level. On the contrary, near-

natives exhibited native command of this construction and converged with native

speakers in their judgments. This entails that they (i) exhibited sensitivity to the semantic

nuances of verbs that are relevant for the distinction ([+c]) and (ii) realized how the

distinction is marked morphologically in Spanish (se). Thus, UG helped the leaner reduce

the hypothesis space by allowing him to group predicates according to their nuanced

semantic and morphosyntactic behavior.

For Reinhart & Siloni (2005, p. 391), the process examined in this article (i.e.

decausativization) is related to a parameter having to do with arity operations:9

(39) The lex-syn parameter: Universal Grammar allows thematic arity

operations to apply in the lexicon or in the syntax.

They argue that English sets to “lexicon” while Spanish sets to “syntax”. However,

decausativization always takes place in the lexicon,10 while reflexivization and other

operations can take place in the lexicon or the syntax. An analysis of L2 learners’

understanding/use of reflexivization or other arity operations (e.g., saturation,

reciprocalization) in conjunction with the findings of this study could shed light on the

lex-syn parameter in L2 acquisition. This is an endeavor for future research.

Finally, this study has certain limitations such as the low number of experimental

items and the lack of another experimental task that could complement the results of the

GJT. Further research will need to address these limitations in order to confirm the

findings of this study. Additionally, exploring participants’ intuitions and use of

unergative and unaccusative predicates with other types of se (e.g., reflexive, impersonal)

will broaden our understanding of L2 learners’ knowledge of Spanish argument structure.

                                                                                                               9 Arity operations are those that that affect the syntactic valence of a predicate (Reinhart & Siloni, 2005, p. 390) 10 Following the lexicon interface guideline: The syntactic component cannot manipulate θ-grids: elimination, modification, and addition of a θ-role are illicit in the syntax.  

6. Conclusion

This article examined developmental patterns of the acquisition of Spanish

anticausative se across four proficiency levels ranging from low/intermediate to near-

native. The L2 learners in this study were sensitive to the semantic nuances that

distinguish predicates that do and do not alternate in transitivity. However, low-

proficiency learners experienced some problems with morphology related to L1 transfer

and the polyfunctionality of Spanish se. The main contribution of this paper to the study

of transitivity alternations is that it suggests that, at least for the acquisition of

anticausative se in Spanish and despite difficulties at lower levels of proficiency, L2

learners manage to succeed at the end of the road.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to Misha Becker for her useful feedback on earlier versions of this

manuscript. I also thank the anonymous reviewers of RESLA/SJAL. All remaining errors

are my own.

References

Aranovich, R. (2000). Spanish inchoatives and the semantics of split intransitivity. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective

overview. Language Learning, 56, 9-49.

Bruhn de Garavito, J. (1999). The se constructions in Spanish and near-native

competence Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 247-296.

Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and

monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic

Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(2), 111-148.

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht:

Reidel.

Cabrera, M. & Zubizarreta, M. L.. (2003). On the Acquisition of Spanish Causative

Structures by L1 Speakers of English. In Proceedings of the 6th Generative

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002), ed. J.M.

Liceras et al., 24-33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Cabrera, M. and Zubizarreta, M.L. (2005). Overgeneralization of Causatives and Transfer

in L2 Spanish and L2 English. In Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on

the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, ed. D.

Eddington, 15-30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Chierchia, G. (1989) A Semantics for Unaccusatives and its Syntactic Consequences.

Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In N. Hornstein & D.

Lightfoot (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language

acquisition (pp. 32–75). London, UK: Longman.

Cinque, G. (1988). On si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 521-

581

Cohen, J., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive

graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology

laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,

and Computers, 25, 257-271.

Contreras, H. (1978). El orden de las palabras en español. Madrid: Cátedra.

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.

Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of

order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications

for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and

computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage.

Language Learning, 59, Supplement 1, 93–128.

Ellis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating

the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63, Supplement

1, 25-51.

Gómez Soler, I. (2013). Aspectual Differences with Syntactic Consequences: Argument

Structure Alternations in L2 Spanish. In Proceedings of the 12th Generative

Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 12), ed. J.

Cabrelli Amaro et al., 50-59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Gómez Soler, I. (2014). The Logical Problem of L2 Acquisition of Argument Structure:

Recognizing Aspectual Distinctions in Spanish Psych-Predicates. International

Journal of Bilingualism. Retrieved from:

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/07/1367006914527185.full.pdf+html

Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax semantics

interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kempchinsky, P. (2004). Romance se as an aspectual element. In J. Auger, J.C. Clements

& B.Vance (eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected

Papers from the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 239–

256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

King, L.D., & Suñer, M. (2007). Gramatica española: análisis y práctica. New York:

McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory, 27(1), 77-138.

Miguel, E. de (1992). El aspecto en la sintaxis del español: Perfectividad e

imperfectividad. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second

Language Research, 15(2), 191-217.

Montrul, S. (2000). Transitive alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of

transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 171–206.

Montrul, S. (2001a). First-language constrained variability in the second language

acquisition of argument structure-changing morphology with causative verbs.

Second Language Research, 17(2), 144–194.

Montrul, S. (2001b). Agentive verbs of manner of motion in Spanish and English as

second languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 171–207.

Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp.

157–189.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: William Morrow and Co.

PsyScope X Project. (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://psy.ck.sissa.it

Reinhart, T. (2000), The Theta System: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts, OTS

Working papers, 00.01/TL.

Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3), 229-

290.

Reinhart, T., & Siloni, T. (2005). The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and

other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389-436.

Rosen, C. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations.

In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2 (pp. 38–77).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal

subjects and the syntax–pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 951–

973.

Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2008). Poverty of the stimulus and L2 epistemology:

Considering L2 Knowledge of aspectual phrasal semantics. Language

Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, 15(4), 270–314.

Schwartz, B. D. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 106, 133–160.

Sorace (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native

grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9(1), 22-47

Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language,

76(4), 859–890.

Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In M. Long and C. Doughty (eds.), Handbook of

Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 130-152). Oxford: Blackwell.

Torrego, E. (1989). Unergative-unaccusative alternations in Spanish. MIT Working

Papers in Linguistics 10, 253–269.

Toth, P. D. (1999). Preemption in instructed learners of Spanish as a foreign language:

Acquiring a rule for se. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 195-246.

Toth, P.D. (2000). The Interaction of Instruction and Learner-Internal Factors in the

Acquisition of L2 Morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(2),

169-208.

Toth, P. D., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2013). The impact of instruction on second-language

implicit knowledge: Evidence against encapsulation. Applied Psycholinguistics,

34(6), 1163-1193.

Tremblay, A. (2006). On the second language acquisition of Spanish reflexive passives

and reflexive impersonals by French- and English-speaking adults. Second

Language Research, 22(1), 30-63.

Valenzuela, E. (2006). L2 end state grammars and incomplete acquisition of the Spanish

CLLD constructions. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost, Inquiries in

Linguistic Development: in Honor of Lydia White. (pp. 283–304). Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (2008). Theories in second language acquisition: An

introduction. New York: Routledge

Van Valin, R. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221–260

White, L. (1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. French Language

Studies, 1(2), 189–207.

White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, 1, 81-

114.

Zyzik, E. (2006). Transitivity alternations and sequence learning: Insights from L2

Spanish production data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 449–485.