GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

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

plus some language plus some language universals for good measureuniversals for good measure

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far UG UG principlesprinciples

(Subjacency, Binding Theory)(Subjacency, Binding Theory) UG UG parametersparameters of variation of variation

(Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding domains, null subject, Vdomains, null subject, VT)T)

Justified in large part on the basis of Justified in large part on the basis of L1.L1. the complexity of languagethe complexity of language the paucity of useful datathe paucity of useful data the uniform success and speed of L1’ers the uniform success and speed of L1’ers acquiring language.acquiring language.

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far To what extent is UG still involved in L2A?To what extent is UG still involved in L2A? Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of systematicity, complexity which also seems to systematicity, complexity which also seems to be more than the linguistic input could be more than the linguistic input could motivate.motivate.

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

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

Initial state: 3 Initial state: 3 optionsoptions

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

Parts of the L1 (certain parameter Parts of the L1 (certain parameter settings)settings) Eubank (1993/4) “Valueless Features Hypothesis”Eubank (1993/4) “Valueless Features Hypothesis” Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994) “Minimal trees”Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994) “Minimal trees”

Clean slate (UG defaults)Clean slate (UG defaults) Epstein et. al (1996)Epstein et. al (1996) Platzack (1996) “Initial Hypothesis of Syntax”Platzack (1996) “Initial Hypothesis of Syntax”

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

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

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

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

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A An adult clause, An adult clause, where kids end up.where kids end up.

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A Very early on, kids are Very early on, kids are observed to use observed to use non-non-nominative subjectsnominative subjects almost all the time almost all the time (90%) like:(90%) like:

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A Vainikka’s Vainikka’s proposal was that proposal was that children who do children who do this are in a this are in a VP VP stagestage, where their , where their entire syntactic entire syntactic representation of representation of a sentence a sentence consists of a verb consists of a verb phrase.phrase.

my

DP

V DP

V

VP

makea house

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A As children get As children get older, they start older, they start using nominative using nominative subjectssubjects

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A I I color mecolor me

Nina (2;1)Nina (2;1) The nominative The nominative subject tells us subject tells us that the kid has at that the kid has at least AgrP in their least AgrP in their structure.structure.

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme

Vainikka (1993/4), L1AVainikka (1993/4), L1A Know what Know what my my making?making? Nina (2;4)Nina (2;4)

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

my

DP

T

T

TP

V

DPi

V

VP

making

what

ti

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

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

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

L1 L1 head

% head-final VPs in L2

Korean/Turkish final 98Italian/Spanish (I)

initial

19

Italian/Spanish (II)

initial

64

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

VP-i: L1 value transferred for head-parameter, trees truncated at VP.VP-ii: L2 value adopted for head-parameter, trees still truncated at VPNL VPs V-

initialV-final

Bongiovanni

I 20 13 (65%) 7

Salvatore I 44 35 (80%) 9Jose S 20 15 (75%) 5Rosalinda S 24 24

(100%)0

Antonio S 68 20 48 (71%)

Jose S 37 23 14 (38%)

Lina I 24 7 17 (71%)

Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76%)

PredictionsPredictions

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP


T/Agr (=INFL):T/Agr (=INFL): Modals and Modals and auxiliaries appear auxiliaries appear therethere

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

Subject agreement is Subject agreement is controlled therecontrolled there

CC Complementizers Complementizers ((thatthat, , ifif) appear ) appear therethere

Wh-questions involve Wh-questions involve movement to CPmovement to CP

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP


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

No consistent No consistent agreement with the agreement with the subject.subject.

No modals or No modals or auxiliaries.auxiliaries.

No complementizers.No complementizers. No complex No complex sentences (embedded sentences (embedded sentences)sentences)

No No whwh-movement.-movement.

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage

At the VP stage, At the VP stage, we find lack ofwe find lack of verb raising verb raising (INFL and/or CP)(INFL and/or CP)

auxiliaries and auxiliaries and modals (generated modals (generated in INFL)in INFL)

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

complementizers complementizers (CP)(CP)

whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

VP Kor 1 1 68VP Tur 0 1 75VP-i It 0 0 65VP-ii It 0 0 82VP-i Sp 8 5 74VP-ii Sp 1 1 57

All came from Rosalinda (Sp.); three instances of wolle ‘want’ and five with is(t) ‘is’—evidence seems to be that she doesn’t control IP yet.

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack ofAt the VP stage, we find lack of

verb raising (INFL and/or CP)verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL)an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP)complementizers (CP) whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

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

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

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage At the VP stage, we find lack ofAt the VP stage, we find lack of

verb raising (INFL and/or CP)verb raising (INFL and/or CP) auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL) an agreement paradigm (INFL)an agreement paradigm (INFL) complementizers (CP)complementizers (CP) whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

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

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

V&YS L2A—TP stageV&YS L2A—TP stage After the VP stage, L2 learners move After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single functional projection, to a single functional projection, which appears to be TP.which appears to be TP.

Modals and auxiliaries can start Modals and auxiliaries can start there.there.

Verb raising can take place to there.Verb raising can take place to there. Note: the TL TP is head-final, however.Note: the TL TP is head-final, however.

Agreement seems still to be lacking Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and not yet AgrP is (TP only, and not yet AgrP is acquired).acquired).

V&YS L2A—TP stageV&YS L2A—TP stage Characteristics of the TP stage:Characteristics of the TP stage:

optional verb raising (to T)optional verb raising (to T) some auxiliaries and modals (to T)some auxiliaries and modals (to T) lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP yet)yet)

lack of complementizers (CP)lack of complementizers (CP) lack of lack of whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

TP Sp 21 9 41TP Tur [0] 5 68–75

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

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

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

Properties of the AgrP stage:Properties of the AgrP stage: verb raisingverb raising frequent frequent auxiliaries and modalsauxiliaries and modals common common agreement paradigm acquiredagreement paradigm acquired some embedded clauses with complementizerssome embedded clauses with complementizers complex complex whwh-questions attested.-questions attested.

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

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

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

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


Summary of the proposed stagesSummary of the proposed stages

Top XP

V-mmt

aux/modals

obligsubjs

S–Vagrt

embedded w/ C

question formation

VP no no no no no noFP opt some no no no noAgrP yes yes yes yes no no

StagesStages So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages…So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages… An important point about this is that this does An important point about this is that this does notnot mean that a L2 learner at a given point in mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is necessarily in exactly one stage, time is necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly one kind of structure.producing exactly one kind of structure. (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by (My response on V&YS’s behalf to an objection raised by Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be Epstein et al. 1996; V&YS’s endorsement should not be inferred.)inferred.)

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

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

V&YS summaryV&YS summary So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that So, Vainikka & Young-Scholten propose that L2A L2A is acquired by “building up” the syntactic is acquired by “building up” the syntactic treetree—that beginner L2’ers have syntactic —that beginner L2’ers have syntactic representations of their utterances which are representations of their utterances which are lacking the functional projections which lacking the functional projections which appear in the adult L1’s representations, but appear in the adult L1’s representations, but that they gradually acquire the full that they gradually acquire the full structure.structure.

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

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

Problems with Minimal Problems with Minimal TreesTrees

White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties that the Minimal Trees account has.that the Minimal Trees account has.

Data seems to be not very consistent.Data seems to be not very consistent. Evidence for DP and NegP from V&YS’s own data.Evidence for DP and NegP from V&YS’s own data. E->F kids manage to get V left of E->F kids manage to get V left of paspas (Grondin & (Grondin & White 1996)White 1996)

but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are kids who might have benefited from earlier exposure to French.who might have benefited from earlier exposure to French.

V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default V&YS also propose at one point that V->T is the default value.value.

Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI (evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also (evidence of CP) but V&YS’s criteria would also lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same point. (Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996).(Gavruseva & Lardiere 1996).

Problems with Minimal Problems with Minimal TreesTrees

Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary.Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary. V&YS count something as acquired if it appears V&YS count something as acquired if it appears more than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the more than 60% of the time. Why 60%? For kids, the arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%.arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90%.

Is morphology really the best indicator of Is morphology really the best indicator of knowledge?knowledge? Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks Prévost & White, discussed a couple of weeks hence, say “no”— better is to look at the hence, say “no”— better is to look at the properties like word order that the functional properties like word order that the functional categories are supposed to be responsible for.categories are supposed to be responsible for.

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

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

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

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

Agr Agr beforbefore Te T

T T beforbefore Agre Agr

Both T Both T and Agr and Agr at at outsetoutset

3pl 3pl before before tensetense

3pl 3pl after after tensetense

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

88 00 77 00 1212 33Past Past before before FutFut

Fut Fut before before PastPast

Both Fut Both Fut and Past and Past at at outsetoutset

66 22 77

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

Agr reliably before TAgr reliably before T 3pl late (of 3pl late (of agreements).agreements).

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

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

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

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

Eubank: Valueless Eubank: Valueless FeaturesFeatures

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

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

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

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

VFH and V->TVFH and V->T In fact (as we’ll discuss next week In fact (as we’ll discuss next week more carefully), White did a well-known more carefully), White did a well-known series of experiments on F>L2E learners series of experiments on F>L2E learners that did show that the learners that did show that the learners accepted both.accepted both. Pat eats often apples.Pat eats often apples. Pat often eats apples.Pat often eats apples.

Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, but White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s but White (1992, 2003) notes that it’s unexpected for the VFH that they don’t unexpected for the VFH that they don’t also allow verb raising past negation.also allow verb raising past negation. *Pat eats not apples.*Pat eats not apples. Pat does not eat apples.Pat does not eat apples.

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

Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C Yuan (2001) looked at E>L2C and F>L2C learners’ responses to alternative verb-learners’ responses to alternative verb-adverb orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows adverb orders in Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V order (no raising).only Adv-V order (no raising). Zhangsan changchang kan dianshi.Zhangsan changchang kan dianshi. *Zhangsan kan changchang dianshi.*Zhangsan kan changchang dianshi.

But neither group (and notably not even But neither group (and notably not even F>L2C) ever produced/accepted the V-Adv F>L2C) ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. *VFH, but also possibly *FTFA (to be order. *VFH, but also possibly *FTFA (to be discussed soon).discussed soon).

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

Eubank’s own Eubank’s own experimentsexperiments

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

Eubank & Grace (1998)Eubank & Grace (1998) E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them E&G tested C>L2E speakers, divided them into two groups based on a pretest of into two groups based on a pretest of their production of subject-verb their production of subject-verb agreement (idea: “no-agreement” subjects agreement (idea: “no-agreement” subjects would have not valued their features would have not valued their features yet, “agreement” subjects have at least yet, “agreement” subjects have at least valued some of them).valued some of them).

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

Hmm.Hmm.

Eubank et al. (1997)Eubank et al. (1997) Same basic premises, different tasks:Same basic premises, different tasks:

Tom draws slowly jumping monkeys.Tom draws slowly jumping monkeys. For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is the jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). the jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task Eubank et al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this.to test this.

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

Eubank et al. (1997)Eubank et al. (1997) The actual results didn’t go along very well The actual results didn’t go along very well with the predictions either. Pretty low with the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance rate of raised-V interpretations if acceptance rate of raised-V interpretations if they’re really supposed to be grammatical in they’re really supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And the agreement group wasn’t acting the IL. And the agreement group wasn’t acting native-speaker-like either, even though they native-speaker-like either, even though they should have valued the feature.should have valued the feature.

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

Schwartz 1998Schwartz 1998 Promotes the idea that L2 Promotes the idea that L2 patterns come about from patterns come about from full full transfertransfer and and full accessfull access.. The entire L1 grammar (not just The entire L1 grammar (not just short trees) is the starting short trees) is the starting point.point.

Nothing stops parameters from Nothing stops parameters from being reset in the IL.being reset in the IL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German, Korean, TurkishGerman, Korean, Turkish N moves over Adj in N moves over Adj in RomanceRomance

Spanish, ItalianSpanish, Italian

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

D

D

DP

N

adjectiveN

NP

…

Parodis 1997—N-Adj Parodis 1997—N-Adj orderorderNL N-Adj

(error)Bongiovanni I 3/8

1/537.5%20.0%

Lina I 3/230/81/11

13.0%0.0%9.1%

Bruno I 9/3217/640/12

28.1%26.6%0.0%

Ana S 7/280/10

25.0%0.0%

Koreans K 1/102 1.0%Turks T 0/103 0.0%

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

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

Morphology and finiteness somewhat Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate (to be discussed in two weeks).separate (to be discussed in two weeks).

No transfer/Full accessNo transfer/Full access Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote a well-known wrote a well-known BBS BBS article endorsing article endorsing the view that L2A is not only UG-the view that L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it basically “starts constrained, but that it basically “starts over” with UG like L1A does.over” with UG like L1A does.

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

New parameter settingsNew parameter settings Japanese vs. English = SOV vs. SVO.Japanese vs. English = SOV vs. SVO. EFM make a mysterious statement:EFM make a mysterious statement:

““Left-headed C° correlates with right-branching adjunction Left-headed C° correlates with right-branching adjunction and right-headed C° with left-branching adjunction”and right-headed C° with left-branching adjunction”

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

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

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

New parameter settingsNew parameter settings And then EFM proceed to report that And then EFM proceed to report that Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t Japanese speakers (J>L2E) don’t significantly prefer preverbal adverbial significantly prefer preverbal adverbial clauses (purported SOV preference), and clauses (purported SOV preference), and even eventually prefer postverbal even eventually prefer postverbal adverbial clauses (purported SVO adverbial clauses (purported SVO preference).preference).

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

Martohardjono 1993Martohardjono 1993 Interesting test of Interesting test of relativerelative judgments.judgments.

It is generally agreed that ECP It is generally agreed that ECP violations…violations… Which waiter did the man leave the table Which waiter did the man leave the table after spilled the soup?after spilled the soup?

are worse than Subjacency violationsare worse than Subjacency violations Which patient did Max explain how the Which patient did Max explain how the poison killed?poison killed?

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

Martohardjono 1993Martohardjono 1993 Turns out, yeah, they seem to.Turns out, yeah, they seem to. But it turns out that speakers of languages But it turns out that speakers of languages without overt without overt whwh-movement had lower accuracy -movement had lower accuracy on judging the violations overall.on judging the violations overall.

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

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

EFM’s experimentEFM’s experiment Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers learning English (33 kids, 18 adults).learning English (33 kids, 18 adults).

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

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

EFM’s experimentEFM’s experiment Kids did equally well in this repetition task as adults.Kids did equally well in this repetition task as adults. Kids seemed to get around 70% success on IP-related Kids seemed to get around 70% success on IP-related things, around 50% success on CP-related things. The things, around 50% success on CP-related things. The deeper topicalizations are harder than shallower deeper topicalizations are harder than shallower topicalizations.topicalizations.

EFM would have you believe:EFM would have you believe: Based on their data collapsing over all kids and over all adults, Based on their data collapsing over all kids and over all adults, there are no stages.there are no stages.

CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite the higher success with IP, just because CP-related structures are success with IP, just because CP-related structures are intrinsically harder/more complex.intrinsically harder/more complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Typological) (Typological) universalsuniversals

All languages have vowels.All languages have vowels.

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

VSO?VSO?Adposition Adposition typetype

Yes Yes NoNo

PrePrepositionspositions WelshWelsh EnglisEnglishh

PostPostpositionspositions NoneNone JapaneJapanesese

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

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

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

MarkednessMarkedness

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

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

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

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

““Unlikeliness”Unlikeliness” Typological / crosslinguistic Typological / crosslinguistic infrequencyinfrequency.. VOS word order is marked.VOS word order is marked.

More complexMore complex constructions. constructions. [ts] is more marked than [t].[ts] is more marked than [t].

The The non-default settingnon-default setting of a of a parameter.parameter. Non-null subjects?Non-null subjects?

Language-specificLanguage-specific//idiosyncraticidiosyncratic features.features. Vs. UG/universal features…?Vs. UG/universal features…?

Berlin & Kay 1969: Berlin & Kay 1969: Color termsColor terms

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

Basic color terms Basic color terms across languages.across languages. It turns out that languages differ It turns out that languages differ in how many color terms count as in how many color terms count as basic.basic. ( (blueishblueish, , salmon-coloredsalmon-colored, , crimsoncrimson, , blondblond, … are not basic)., … are not basic).


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


ArabicArabic (Lebanon) (Lebanon) BulgarianBulgarian (Bulgaria)(Bulgaria)

CatalanCatalan (Spain) (Spain) CantoneseCantonese (China) (China) MandarinMandarin (China) (China) EnglishEnglish (US) (US) HebrewHebrew (Israel) (Israel) HungarianHungarian (Hungary) (Hungary) IbiboIbibo (Nigeria) (Nigeria) IndonesianIndonesian (Indonesia)(Indonesia)

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

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

Eleven possible basic Eleven possible basic color termscolor terms

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

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

Has Has 33 terms, contains a term for terms, contains a term for redred.. Has Has 44 terms, contains terms, contains green green or or yellowyellow.. Has Has 55 terms, contains terms, contains both both green green andand yellowyellow..

Has Has 66 terms, contains terms, contains blueblue.. Has Has 77 terms, contains terms, contains brownbrown.. Has Has 8 or more 8 or more terms, chosen from {terms, chosen from {purplepurple, , pinkpink, , orangeorange, , graygray}}

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

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

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

Seven Rivers District, Queensland.Seven Rivers District, Queensland. BWBWRRGG Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines) BWBWRRYY Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people

(Queensland)(Queensland) BWBWRRYYGG Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria) BWBWRRYYGGUU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe

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

(southern India)(southern India)

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

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

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

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

Having Having greengreen is more marked than having is more marked than having redred…… Like a set of implicational universals…Like a set of implicational universals…

Blue implies yellowBlue implies yellow Brown implies blueBrown implies blue Blue implies greenBlue implies green Pink implies brownPink implies brown Yellow or green imply red Yellow or green imply red Orange implies Orange implies brownbrown

Red implies blackRed implies black Gray implies brownGray implies brown Red implies whiteRed implies white Purple implies brownPurple implies brown

L2A?L2A? Our overarching theme:Our overarching theme:How much is L2/IL like a L1?How much is L2/IL like a L1?

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

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

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

Question formationQuestion formation Declarative: Declarative: John will buy coffee.John will buy coffee.

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

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

WhWh-inversion-inversionWhWh--frontingfronting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L2: EnglishL2: English

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

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


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

DoesDoes JoanJoan has a husband? has a husband? Yesterday Yesterday isis SueSue did drink two did drink two bottles of wine?bottles of wine?


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

WhereWhere Sue is living? Sue is living? WhyWhy diddid SueSue stops drinking? stops drinking? WhyWhy isis PattyPatty’s going robbing the ’s going robbing the bank?bank?

WhatWhat they are radicals? they are radicals? WhatWhat Sue and Patty connection? Sue and Patty connection? WhyWhy she was angry? she was angry?

Eckman Eckman et al. et al. (1989)(1989)

whwh-inv-invwhwh--

frontingfronting??

resultsresults

%% WhinvWhinv %% WhfrWhfrSMSM KK 2525 NONO 100100 YESYESUAUA TT 5454 NONO 100100 YESYESTSTS JJ 7070 NONO 100100 YESYESMKMK KK 8080 NONO 100100 YESYESRORO JJ 8888 NONO 100100 YESYESKOKO JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYESMHMH JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYESNENE TT 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYESSISI JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYESGG TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYESMAMA TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYESSTST JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYESTMTM KK 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYESYKYK JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

Eckman et Eckman et al. al.

(1989)(1989)

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

resultsresults

%% YNinvYNinv %% WHinvWHinvSMSM KK 88 NONO 2525 NONOMKMK KK 3838 NONO 8080 NONOYKYK JJ 5151 NONO 100100 YESYESTSTS JJ 6767 NONO 7070 NONOTMTM KK 8383 NONO 100100 YESYESRORO JJ 8585 NONO 8888 NONOBGBG TT 8686 NONO 100100 YESYESMAMA TT 8888 NONO 100100 YESYESUAUA TT 9191 YESYES 5454 NONOKOKO JJ 9393 YESYES 9595 YESYESMHMH JJ 9595 YESYES 9595 YESYESNENE TT 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYESSISI JJ 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYESSTST JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES


Yes/no Yes/no inversioninversionWh-inversionWh-inversion

Yes Yes (VS)(VS)

No No (SV)(SV)

Yes (VS)Yes (VS) 55 44

No (SV)No (SV) 11 44

Eckman’s Markedness Eckman’s Markedness Differential HypothesisDifferential Hypothesis

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

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

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

Markedness Differential Markedness Differential HypothesisHypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eckman (1981)Eckman (1981)

Spanish L1Spanish L1 Mandarin L1Mandarin L1GlossGloss IL formIL form GlossGloss IL formIL formBobBob [b p][b p] TagTag [tæg ][tæg ]BobbyBobby [b bi][b bi] AndAnd [ænd ][ænd ]RedRed [r[rt]t] WetWet [w t][w t]WetWet [w t][w t] DeckDeck [d[dk]k]SickSick [s[sIIk]k] LetterLetter [l[lt r]t r]

BleedingBleeding [blid[blidIIn]n]

cc

e

eee

e

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


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

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

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

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

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

MDH and ILMDH and IL IL obeys implicational universals.IL obeys implicational universals. That is, That is, we know that IL is a languagewe know that IL is a language.. So, we know that languages are such So, we know that languages are such that having word-final voiceless that having word-final voiceless obstruents implies that you also have obstruents implies that you also have word-final sonorant consonants, among word-final sonorant consonants, among other things.other things.

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

Generalizing with Generalizing with markedness scalesmarkedness scales


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

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

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

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

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

The Noun Phrase The Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

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

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

Compare:Compare: I met I met the astronautthe astronaut yesterday. yesterday. This is an This is an object relativeobject relative because the place because the place where the head noun where the head noun wouldwould be in the simple be in the simple sentence version is the object.sentence version is the object.


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

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

[I am braver than —][I am braver than —] obj. of comparativeobj. of comparative


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPAH and resumptive NPAH and resumptive pronounspronouns

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

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

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

Lang.Lang. SUBSUB DODO IOIO OPOP GENGEN OCOMPOCOMPArabicArabic –– ++ ++ ++ ++ ++GreekGreek –– –– +?+? +?+? ++ ++JapanesJapanesee

–– –– –– –– +/ +/ ––

PersianPersian –– (+)(+) ++ ++ ++ ++

Noun Phrase Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

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

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

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp> OComp


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

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

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp> OComp


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

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

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

Relation to L2A?Relation to L2A? Suppose that KoL includes where the Suppose that KoL includes where the target language is on the NPAH.target language is on the NPAH.

Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple relative clauses before the others?relative clauses before the others?

Do L2’ers transfer the position of their Do L2’ers transfer the position of their L1 first?L1 first?

Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar obey Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar obey this typological generalization (if they this typological generalization (if they can relativize a particular point on the can relativize a particular point on the NPAH, can they relativize everything NPAH, can they relativize everything higher too?)?higher too?)?

NPAH and L2A?NPAH and L2A? Probably:Probably: The higher something is on the The higher something is on the NPAH, the easier (faster) it is to learn.NPAH, the easier (faster) it is to learn.

So, it might be easier to start by teaching So, it might be easier to start by teaching subject relatives, then object, then subject relatives, then object, then indirect object, etc. At each step, the indirect object, etc. At each step, the difficulty would be low.difficulty would be low.

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

NPAH in L2ANPAH in L2A Very widely studied Very widely studied implicational universal in L2A—implicational universal in L2A—many people have addressed the many people have addressed the question of whether the IL obeys question of whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether teaching aa the NPAH and whether teaching aa marked structure can help.marked structure can help.

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

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

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

012345678

Subj Obj O.P.

Subj GroupObj GroupO.P. GroupControls

Transfer, markedness, …Transfer, markedness, … Do (2002) looked at the NPAH Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the other way, going the other way, EnglishEnglishKorean.Korean. English: English: Relativizes on all 6 Relativizes on all 6 positions.positions.

Korean:Korean: Relativizes on 5 (not Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)OCOMP)

SS SUSU dodo IOIO OPOP GEGE

1313 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++1414 ++ ++ ++ ++ --1616 ++ ++ ++ -- --2929 ++ ++ -- -- --3131 ++ -- -- -- --2020 -- -- -- -- --

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

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

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

Subset principle?Subset principle?

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

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

E

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

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

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

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

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

E

I

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

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

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

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

Subset principle and Subset principle and markednessmarkedness

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

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

Subset vs. TransferSubset vs. Transfer The Subset Principle, if it operating, would The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say that L2A starts with all of the say that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the maximally conservative defaults, the maximally conservative grammar.grammar.

Another, Another, mutually exclusivemutually exclusive possibility possibility (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A starts with the L1 setting.starts with the L1 setting. This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, has the unmarked (subset) value, only negative only negative evidenceevidence could move the L2’er to the right setting. could move the L2’er to the right setting.

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

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing? At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH results following from the Subset Principle results following from the Subset Principle is just that relative clauses formed on is just that relative clauses formed on positions lower in the hierarchy are positions lower in the hierarchy are harder harder to processto process. Consider:. Consider:

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

OCOMPOCOMP

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

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

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

The NPAH is a typological generalization The NPAH is a typological generalization about about languageslanguages not about the not about the course of course of acquisitionacquisition..

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

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

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

Subset problems?Subset problems? One problem, though, is that many of One problem, though, is that many of the parameters of variation we think the parameters of variation we think of today don’t seem to be really of today don’t seem to be really inin a subset-superset relation. So there a subset-superset relation. So there has to be something else going on in has to be something else going on in these cases anyway.these cases anyway. VVTT

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

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

GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Documents

nominative case

radfords l1 proposal

existing l1

vainikkas l1 tree

nonnominative subjects

rizzis l1 truncation

null subject

subject pronoun