cristóbal lozano [email protected] cristoballozano joint work with amaya mendikoetxea (uam)...

●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●● 1

Verb-Subject order and the interfaces in L1 Spa-L2 Eng: From

corpus data to experimental data

Centre de Lingüística TeòricaUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona

10 June 2011

Cristóbal [email protected] http://wdb.ugr.es/~cristoballozanoJoint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM)

mailto:[email protected]

http://wdb.ugr.es/~cristoballozano

http://wdb.ugr.es/~cristoballozano


Abstract

Current second language acquisition (SLA) research from a formal perspective deals with the role of the interfaces in second language acquisition (SLA).

I will discuss the role of the interfaces in the acquisition of word order alternations (Subject-Verb and Verb-Subject) with intransitives (unaccusatives and unergatives) in both L1 English - L2 Spanish and L1 Spanish - L2 English.

Experimental and corpus data reveal that unacusativity (lexicon-syntax interface) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the the acceptance and production of postverbal subjects (VS) in SLA, since VS is simultaneously constrained by other interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology).

3

Pronominals: L1 Eng / Ital: Serratrice 2004,

Serratrice & al 2004, Tsimpli et al 2004

L1 Ital / Dutch: Pinto 2006 L1 Ital / Ger: Müller & al 2002 L1 Spa / Eng: Paradis & Navarro

2003 L1 Spa / Eng: Pladevall –

Ballester (2010) see also for SV inversion

Pronominals: L2 Eng – L1 Spa: Montrul 2004,

Satterfield 2003 L2 Eng – L1 Greek/Ital: Tsimpli et

al 2004 SV inversion:

L2 Eng – L1 Catalan: Helland 2004

Pronominals: L1 Spa: Grinstead 2004 L1 Eng: Chien & Wexler 1990,

Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993

A widespread phenomenon Observation:

Purely syntactic properties early acquired, native-like knowledge Interface properties (syntax-discourse) residual deficits (e.g., optionality)

Context: 2 properties of pro-drop parameter: null subjects and SV inversion E.g., Sorace 2004, White 2009 for overviews

Pronominals: L1 Eng – L2 Spa: Al-Kasey &

Perez-Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989, Liceras & Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002, 2009, Montrul & Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux & al 1999, Perez-Leorux & Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987.

L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2003, Margaza & Bel 2006

L1 Spa – L2 Eng: Lozano 2009 L1 Eng – L2 Ital: Sorace & Filiaci

2006 L1 Croat – L2 Ital: Kras 2006 L1 Ital – L2 Spa: Bini 1993 L1 Jap – L2 Eng: Polio 1995

SV inversion: L1 Spa – L2 English: Lozano

2006a, Hertel 2003 L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2006b L1 several – L2 Italian: Belletti &

Leonini 2004 L1 Quechua – L2 Spa: Camacho

1999

L2 a

cquis

itio

n

L1 b

iling

L1 a

ttri

L1


Background: Interfaces

Theoretical linguistics 80s, 90s: parametric variation 2000s: emphasis on interfaces

▪ How syntactic module interfaces with language-internal module (lexicon) and language-external modules (SM and CI).

▪ Output generated by computational system has to be interpreted/legible by other cognitive systems.

Acquisition: L1, L2, attrition, biling 80s, 90s: parameter (re)setting and access to UG 2000s: deficits at the interfaces, vulnerability,

optionality (Sorace & associates). See White 2009 for overview.

Word order alternations (SV/VS) in L2 grammars are ideal to study interface between syntactic and lexical / discursive / phonological modules .

5

General aims

To discuss role of interfaces in L2 acquisition

To briefly assess the explanation of the“syntax before discourse” phenomenon. Sorace, Tsimpli, Montrul, etc: Pragmatic deficit: INTERFACE

HYPOTHESIS: features at the syntax-discourse interface are more vulnerable than purely syntactic features.

Our proposal: Formal (syntactic) features are acquired easily and from early stages in SLA, WHILE pragmatic features are intact: Learners are sensitive to discourse status (topic/focus)

BUT are unable to encode it syntactically and thus produce both grammatical and ungrammatical structures syntactic deficit

To use converging evidence: corpus vs experimental data. If learners show certain kinds of knowledge or deficits at the interfaces,

this should be observed in natural production data and in experimental data.

PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH at UAM-UGR since 2006. Cristóbal Lozano and Amaya Mendikoetxea Past and ongoing research

6

To characterize the interlanguage of learners of L2 English (L1 Spanish/Italian) by examining their production of VS structures.

To (dis)confirm previous research: whether postverbal subjects appear only with a type of intransitives (unaccusatives). BUT previous research has ignored that unaccusativity is

a necessary but not sufficient condition for postverbal subjects to be produced.

We argue that the production of postverbal subjects is constrained at three interfaces: Lexicon-syntax interface: unaccusative hypothesis Syntax-phonology interface: end-weight principle Syntax-discourse interface: end-focus principle

To (dis)confirm this both naturalistically (corpus) and experimentally.

Specific aims

7

Quick outline

1. Theoretical background The language faculty and interfaces VS Order in English and Romance

2. VS and unaccusativity in previous L23. Our research: interfaces and XP-V-S

XP-V-S in corpus studies XP-V-S in experimental study

4. Concluding remarks The nature of XP in XP-V-S The use of convergence evidence to study

interfaces (corpora vs. experiments)


THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SV/VS, unaccusativity and interfaces

The language faculty and our hypotheses

Chomsky´s MP (1995) and later LEXICON H1

COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM Syntax

PF LF

H2 H3

SM systems C-I systems


Unerg: John spoke Unac: Three girls arrived / There arrived three girls

(there)

Unaccusative HypothesisLexicon-syntax interfaceBurzio (1986), Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995), etc…

11

Word Order in native English

Fixed SV(O) order VS: Restricted use of postverbal subjects with a subset of unaccs:

XP V S: ‘Locative’ inversion (Inversion structures with an opening loco/temporal

adverbial)

(6) a. [On one long wall] hung a row of Van Goghs. b. [Then] came the turning point of the match.c. [Within the general waste type shown in these figures] exists a wide variation. [Biber et al. 1999: 912-3]

There-constructions(7) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arose a desperate hope that he would

embrace her b. In all such relations [there] exists a set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and economic fieldsc. [There] came a roar of pure delight ….

[Biber et al. 1999: 945]

12

Word Order in native English (VS)

Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, etc):

Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc) [existence and appearance](8) *There sang four girls at the opera. [unergative verb](9) There arrived four girls at the station. [unaccusative verb] ONLY A SUBSET OF THESE

Syntax-discourse interface (Biber et al 1999, Birner 1994, etc):

Postverbal material tends to be focus (new information), while preverbal material links info to previous discourse (topic): Principle of End-Focus.(10) We have complimentary soft drinks and coffee. Also complimentary is red and white wine.

Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc)

Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al. 1972): general processing mechanism (reducing processing burden).(11) One Sunday morning the warm sun came up and - pop!- out of the egg came a tiny and

very hungry caterpillar.

3 principles operating at 3 interfaces:Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in

those structures which allow them (unaccusative verbs).

Generative linguistics

Functional and corpus linguistics

13

Word Order Spanish/Italian

Postverbal subjects can (apparently) alternate ‘freely’ with all verb classes – BUT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS.

(1) a. Ha telefoneado María al presidente. (transitive).has phoned Mary the president

b. Ha hablado Juan. (unergative)has spoken Juan .

c. Ha llegado Juan (unaccusative)

has arrived Juan

14

pro i

DP

llegó j

T

V

María i

DP

V'

VP

T'

TP

tj

María i

DP

gritó j

T

t i

DP

tj

V

V'

VP

T'

TP

Unaccusative Hypothesis (syntax)

Unergatives: SV

Unaccusatives: VS

VS in L1 Spanish/ItalianCONSTRAINT 1: Lexicon-syntax:

Unaccusative Hypothesis

Neutral (non-focus) contexts(1) a. María gritó (unerg) (2) a. # María llegó.(unacc)

b. #/Gritó María. b. Llegó María

‘María shouted’ ‘María arrived.’

15

proi

DP

gritój

T

Maríai

DP

tj

Foc

ti

DP

tj

V

V'

VP

Foc'

FocP

T'

TP

Presentational focus (syntax-discourse interface)

Unergatives: VS

Unaccusatives: VS

proi

DP

llegój

T

Maríai

DP

tj

Foc

ti tj

V

V'

VP

Foc'

FocP

T'

TP

DP

A: ¿Quién llegó? ‘Who arrived?’ B: Llegó María ‘Arrived Maria’

A: ¿Quién gritó? ‘Who shouted?’ B: Gritó María ‘Shouted Maria’

VS in L1 Spanish/ItalianCONSTRAINT 2: Syntax-Discourse (End-

Focus)Inversion as

‘focalisation’:preverbal subjects are

topic (given information)

postverbal subjects are focus (new information)

(Belletti 2001, 2004, Zubizarreta 1998)

16

Word Order in Spa / Ital(VS order)

Lexicon-syntax interface Unaccusative Hypothesis: Unac VS, Unerg SV

Syntax-discourse interfacePostverbal subjects in Spanish and Italian are focusbut unaccusative VS the subject may (or may not) be focus

Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interfaceHeavy subjects show a tendency to be postposed a universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end of a sentence reduces the processing burden (J. Hawkins 1994).[Una mujer] gritóGritó [una mujer que llevaba un vestido de lentejuelas rojas]

Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally, independently of restrictions at the lexicon-syntax interface.


VS and unaccusativity in previous SLA studies

18

The psychological reality of the Unaccusative Hypothesis in SLA

Well known in previous studies: L2 learners discriminate argument structure of

unaccusative vs unergative verbs: ▪ With different manifestations of unaccusativity: word

order, interpretation of quantifiers, clitic climbing, auxiliary selection, etc.

▪ With different L1 – L2 backgrounds (Japanese, Chinese, English, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Arabic, etc)

In particular, VS preferred with unaccusatives > unergatives.

Learners use this knowledge at lexicon-syntax interface as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars.

However: Unaccusativity is a necessary but not sufficient

condition for the production of postverbal subjects in L2 English, as we will see.

let´s explore this in more detail

19

VS in SLA: lexicon-syntax

So, learners are sensitive to unaccusativity hypothesis (lexicon-syntax interface): SV unergs, VS unaccs.

Three production studies in L2 Eng support this: Zobl (1989), Rutherford (1989), Oshita (2004)

(1) Sometimes comes a good regular wave. (L1 Japanese)

(2) On this particular place called G… happened a story which now appears on all Mexican history books…. (L1 Spanish)

(3) The bride was very attractive, on her face appeared those two red cheeks… (L1 Arabic)

(4) a. …it will happen something exciting.... (L1 Spanish)b. …because in our century have appeared the car and the

plane… (L1 Spanish)

BUT learners have difficulty in determining the range of appropriate syntactic realizations of the distinction, and this syntactic deficit can persist into near-native levels of proficiency.

20

VS in SLA: syntax-discourse

Research on VS in L1 Eng - L2 Italian/Spanish shows L2ers show sensitivity at lex-syntax interface (unaccusativity hypothesis): Unac VS, Unerg SV

BUT problems in the integration of syntax-discourse properties L2 learners fail to produce VS in focused contexts or accept VS/SV in

equal proportion (optionality) (See, e.g., Belletti & Leonini 2004, Hertel 2003, Lozano 2006a,

2006b, Belletti et al. 2007, Pladevall-Ballester 2010, etc etc) [see White, 2009]

“In other words, while appropriate L2 syntax is acquired, ‘external’ constraints on the syntax are acquired late (or not all)” [White, 2009]

= ‘syntax before discourse’ hypothesis (Lozano 2006a, 2006b)

21

HypothesesGENERAL HYPOTHESIS:

Interface conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding

(ungrammatical sentences).

H1 [LEXICON]: Lexicon-syntax interface: ▪ Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with

unergatives)

H2 [WEIGHT]: Syntax-PF interface: ▪ Postverbal subjects: heavy (but preverbal light)

H3 [FOCUS]: Syntax-Discourse interface: ▪ Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic)

Known from previous research

Overlooked in previous research

Unlike previous L2 studies, a proper analysis of VS structures must take into account not only the properties of V but also the properties of the postverbal S.

22

CORPUS STUDY #1

V-S structures in:● English natives● L1 Spa – L2 Eng

23

The phenomenon in L2 Eng

Production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in L2 English (Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004)

L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic/Japanese – L2 English:

(1) *…it arrived the day of his departure (L1 Spanish)(2) *And then at last comes the great day. (L1 Spanish)(3) *In every country exist criminals (L1 Spanish)(4) *…after a few minutes arrive the girlfriend with his family too. (L1 Arabic)(5) *Sometimes comes a good regular wave. (L1 Japanese)(6) *…it happened a tragic event. (L1 Italian)

Only with unaccusative verbs (never with unergatives).• Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live…• Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ...

Explanation: LEXICON-SYNTAX INTERFACE (Unaccusative Hypothesis)

24

Corpora used

ICLE: International Corpus of Learner EnglishGranger S., E. Dagneaux and F. Meunier (2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires deLouvain

L1 Spa – L2 EngL1 Ital – L2 Eng

WriCLE: Written Corpus of Learner English; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Rollinson, O’Donnell, Mendikoetxea, in progress) http://www.uam.es/woslac

L1 Spa – L2 Eng

LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of native English Essays, UCL/CECL, Louvain-la Neuve

http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm

English native speakers

http://www.uam.es/woslac

http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm

25

Corpora Corpora:

L1 Spa – L2 Eng Eng natives

Query software: WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)

Table 1: Corpora details

Learner corpora Native corpus Words ICLE-Spanish

WriCLE

200,376 63,836

LOCNESS USarg LOCNESS USmixed LOCNESS Alevels LOCNESS BRsur

149,574 18,826 60,209 59,568

Total no. of words 264,212 288,177

Corpus Verb type Usable concordances Unerg 181 Learner Unac 820 Unerg 185 Native Unac 719

TOTAL 1905

UNACCUSATIVES UNERGATIVES

SEMANTIC CLASS VERB

SEMANTIC CLASS SEMANTIC SUBCLASS VERB

EXISTENCE exist EMISSION beam flow

LIGHT EMISSION

burn grow flame hide flash

live bang remain

SOUND EMISSION

beat rise blast settle boom spread clash survive crack

APPEARANCE appear crash arise cry awake knock begin ring break roll develop sing

emerge SMELL EMIS. smell

flow pour follow

SUBSTANCE EMISSION sweat

happen COMMUNICAT. cry (*) occur

MANNER OF SPEAKING shout

rise sing (*)

DISAPPEARANCE die TALK VERBS speak disappear talk

arrive breathe come

BREATHE VERBS

cough

INHERENTLY DIRECTED MOTION

drop

BODILY PROCESSES

cry (*) enter sweat (**)

METHOD (1)Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):

Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… [TOTAL: 41]

Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… [TOTAL: 32]

METHOD (1)Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):



METHODBased on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995):



27

100.0%

0.0%

92.9%

7.1%

100.0%

0.0%

97.8%

2.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SV VS SV VS

Unerg Unac

Fre

qu

ency

of

pro

du

ctio

n (

in %

)

Learners

Natives

H1 results: syntax-lexicon

Table 1: Frequency of postverbal subjects produced

Corpus Verb type Postverbal subjects Usable concordances % frequency Unerg 0 181 0% Learner Unac 58 820 7.1% Unerg 0 185 0% Native Unac 16 719 2.2%

28

H1: Unaccusative: structurally grammatical vs ungrammatical VS

There-insertion:Learners: There exist positive means of earning money.

AdvP-insertion:Learners: …and here emerges the problem.

Locative inversion:Learners: In the main plot appear the main characters:

Volpone and Mosca.

* it-insertion:Learners: *In the name of religion it had occurred some important

events. * Ø-insertion:

Learners: …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation.

* XP-insertion:Learners: *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in

England.

GRAMM.

UNGRAM.

29

41,4%

15,5%13,8%

10,4% 10,3%8,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

*It-insertion Locativeinversion

XP-insertion There-insertion

AdvP-insertion

*Ø-insertion

Type of preverbal material

Fre

qu

en

cy

of

pro

du

cti

on

(in

%)

Learners

H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs ungrammatical VS

Ungrammatical Ungrammatical

learners: XP Vunac S*it > PP loc > there > *zero

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Weight (# of w ords)

SV native s

SV learners

VS native s

VS learners

H2 results: syntax-phonology

31

67.7%

32.3%

19.0%

81.0%

68.1%

31.9%

18.8%

81.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Light Heavy Light Heavy

SV VS

Fre

qu

ency

of

pro

du

ctio

n (

in %

)

Learners

Natives


Table 1: Weight of pre-verbal and post-verbal subjects with unaccusatives (nominal scale)

Corpus Weight SV order VS order Light 65/96 (67.7%) 11/58 (19.0%) Learner Heavy 31/96 (32.3%) 47/58 (81.0%) Light 62/91 (68.1%) 3/16 (18.8%) Native Heavy 29/91 (31.9%) 13/16 (81.3%)

32

Examples H2: syntax-phonologySV: typically LIGHT (Pronoun, D + N)

Learners: …but they may appear everywhere.

…since the day eventually came…

Natives: These debates began over two decades ago.

…a great controversy exists over the topic.

VS: typically HEAVY (postmodification)

Learners: Against this society drama emerged an opposition headed by Oscar Wilde and Bernard Shaw.… exists yet in Spain a group of people who are supposed to be

professional soldiers.Natives: With this theory also came the area of quantum mechanics.

Thus began the campaign to educate the public on how one contracts aids.

33

89.6%

10.4%

1.7%

98.3%

83.5%

16.5%

0.0%

100.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Top Foc Top Foc

SV VS

Fre

qu

ency

of

pro

du

ctio

n (

in %

)

Learners

Natives

H3: syntax-discourse

Corpus Weight SV order VS order Light 65/96 (67.7%) 11/58 (19.0%) Learner Heavy 31/96 (32.3%) 47/58 (81.0%) Light 62/91 (68.1%) 3/16 (18.8%) Native Heavy 29/91 (31.9%) 13/16 (81.3%)

34

80.0%

20.0%

100.0%

0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Topic Focus

Preverbal Material

Fre

qu

ency

of

pro

du

ctio

n (

in %

)

Learners

Natives


XP Vunacc S

35

Examples H3: syntax-discourse

VS: FOCUS

Learners: The existence of many, and let`s say, miselneous programmes en[c]ourages people to keep watching TV. In Spain we h[a]ve four different channels, and some provinces have their own channels. Furthermore there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid.

Natives: Humanity witnessed one of histories (recorded history) most incredible minds at work when Albert Einstien came onto the scene. Although his theory (his and his wife's) was basically scientific in nature, it can and has been applied to all areas of human existence. The theory I'm speaking of is relativity. With this theory also came the area of quantum mechanics.

SV: typically TOPIC

Learners: I use the Internet … I find windows … if they press on any of these windows … these windows cannot appear because a child could enter easily…

Natives: However, Hugo is not prepared … Louis took such exception to Hugo … Hugo came from a bourgeoisie family.

36

Conclusion

V S

S V

Unacc FocusHeavy

UnaccTopicLight

Interfaces:

Lexicon-syntax

Syntax-discourse

Syntax-phonology

Information status

Vunac S

Topic

Focus

Light

Preverbal --- W

eig

ht

Heavy

--- Postverbal

ContingencyTable

37

Conclusion (2)

Are other learners guided by the same 3 interface principles?

Another corpus study L1 Italian – L2 Eng vs L1 Spa – L2 Eng (Lozano &

Mendikoetxea 2008): same results▪ Lexicon-syntax: postverbal subjects appear only with

unaccusatives.▪ Syntax-phonology: postverbal subjects tend to be long and

complex.▪ Syntax-discourse: postverbal subjects tend to be focus.

Also: evidence from L1 French – L2 Eng (unpublished results yet).

38

Conclusion (3)

Learners of L2 Eng produce VS under same 3 conditions as Eng natives: (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition).

So, learners do not show deficits at the external interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology) against INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS.

Learners show rather a persistent problems in the syntactic encoding of the construction syntactic deficit High production of structurally ungrammatical constructions

(it-insertion, Ø-insertion).

follow-up study (experiment): What is the nature of this syntactic deficit? What is the nature of the preverbal XP (it, Ø)?


FOLLOW-UP EXPERIMENT

Experiment

Reason for the experiment:To (dis)confirm the corpus data

experimentally:Unaccusativity hypothesis: VS with

unaccusatives only Nature of preverbal XP element: XP V S

To obtain converging evidence from different research methods : corpus vs experiment (Gilquin & Gries 2009)

Research method

Research method: acceptability test (online)

32 contextualised sentences4 top inversion unaccusatives in corpus

exist, appear, begin, come4 high frequency unergatives in corpus

talk, work play, speak4 preverbal elements (XP) in corpus

*it, *Ø, there, PP

CRUCIALLY, these sentences were structurally similar to those produced by L2ers in the corpus data.

*it *Ø Vunac NPsubject

there FOCUS & HEAVY

PP

Variables■V1: Verb (unac / unerg)

■Unacc: n=4 high inversion (inv/totalinv in ICLE+WRICLE)Exist (41.4%)Appear (24%)Begin (8.6%)Come (6.9%)

■Unerg: n=4most frequent (conc/totalconcs in ICLE+WRICLE)Talk (35.7%)Work (30.2%)Play (7.7%)Speak (4.4%)

■V2: preverbal XP■*it (n=4)■there (n=4)■*ø (n=4)■PPloc (n=4)

42

Constants

■C1: Info status of postverbal S: focus

■C2: Weight of postverbal S:heavybetween 6 words (median) and 8 words (mean)

■C3: Word order: VS

43

Stimuli

44

■32 stimuli (VS order): ►4 XP (* it / there / *ø / PPloc ) x 4 Vunac (exist/appear/begin/come):

1. * it EXIST 2. there EXIST 3. *ø EXIST 4. PPloc EXIST 5. * it APPEAR 6. there APPEAR 7. *ø APPEAR 8. PPloc APPEAR 9. * it BEGIN 10. there BEGIN 11. *ø BEGIN 12. PPloc BEGIN 13. * it COME 14. there COME 15. *ø COME 16. PPloc COME

►4 XP (* it / * there / *ø / *PPloc ) x 4 Vunerg (talk/work/play/speak): 17. * it TALK 18. * there TALK 19. *ø TALK 20. PPloc TALK 21. * it WORK 22. * there WORK 23. *ø WORK 24. *PPloc WORK 25. * it PLAY 26. * there PLAY 27. *ø PLAY 28. *PPloc PLAY 29. * it SPEAK 30. * there SPEAK 31. *ø SPEAK 32. *PPloc SPEAK

Unaccusatives

Unergatives

etc…

* it EXIST Nowadays, if you work as a policeman in Spain, you can easily get into difficult situations. But… …I think that it exist many more risky and dangerous jobs.

there APPEAR Spain was not a democratic country for many years, but when democracy arrived… …there appeared a great variety of new social problems.

* ø BEGI N Some historians believe that 1940 is a very important year … …because began a terrible war called the “Second World War”.

PPloc COME The house was very dirty. All the windows were closed, the rooms were dark.... …and from the kitchen came a horrible smell of burning oil.

* it TALK Yesterday we were at school doing an exam. The teacher told us to be silent… …but it talked a boy who complained about the exam questions.

Stimuli

Learners

N=322 L1 Spa – L2 Eng Levels (OPT): A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2

RESULTS: experimental vs. corpus When converging evidence: When diverging evidence:

Results (experiment)

Experimental results converge with those obtained in corpus study: XP-V-S is preferred with unac > unerg: UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS converging evidence

BUT also interesting divergence due to nature of method? (next slides)

UNACCUSATIVES: *IT:

‘it’: low rates [corpus: highest rates] decreases as proficiency increases

*ZERO: Ø: low rates too [corpus: lowest rates] also decreases as proficiency increases

THERE: highly accepted [corpus: mildly accepted] remains rather stable across proficiency (=expected)

PP: PP is the preferred option [corpus: rather high too] though it decreases with proficiency (=unexpected)

OVERALL: L2ers prefer grammatical (there, PP) to ungrammatical (*it, *zero), though acceptance of *it & *zero is high in beginners and intermediate.

Results (experiment)

Experimental vs. Corpus evidenceEXPER:

CORPUS:

PP• loc

invers

there

• there insert.

*zero *it

*it PP• loc

invers.

there

• there insert.

*zero


Gramm. vs Ungramm. Learners are sensitive to UH from outset. BUT they start distinguishing grammatical structures vs

ungrammatical structures with unaccusatives only as proficiency increases THOUGH this is persistently problematic:

Loc inv / ´there´ inv vs. *it / *zero

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C21.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Unac-PP

Unac-there

*Unac-it

*Unac-zero

UNERGATIVES: Corpus: Interestingly, L2ers also show a similar

pattern (though lower) for the different XPs shown with unergatives (=unexpected) *PP > *there > *it > *zero

Experimental: no production of VS with unergatives BUT in corpus they tolerate it overextension of unaccusative VS to unerg VS.


Conclusions

LEXICON-SYNTAX: L2ers clearly obey Unaccusativity Hypothesis, both experimentally and in natural production, in different L2’s: Vunac S > Vunerg S

SYNTAX-DISCOURSE AND SYNTAX-PHON: they are also aware of constraints at these interfaces: Vunac Sfocus/heavy

BUT: syntactic encoding of preverbal XP: XP Vunac S: ungrammatical structures (*it, *zero) are

persistently problematic.

53

XP-V-S structure types: 4 corpora compared

41.4

10.48.6

26.7

13.3

6.79.1

50

00

37.5

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

*It-insertion

There-insertion

*Ø-insertion

Spa ICLE+WriCLE Ital ICLE Fre ICLE Eng Natives

• While Spanish and Italian learners of L2 Eng overuse it insertion and, to a lesser extent, Ø insertion, French learners of L2 Eng correctly produce there insertion.• Reason: L1 influence?? French requires overt expletives, Spa/Ital do not.• Spa/Ital are sensitive to EPP in Eng (overt material in Spec,IP), but are unable to encode syntactically.

54

ØVS in L2 English: a preliminary analysis

Production/acceptance of ØVS: possible L1 transfer of EPP since Spa/Ital contain null expletive ??

Previous L2 evicence: +pro-drop (Spa/Ital) learners of –pro-drop (Eng) Obligatory overt referential pronouns acquired early. Obligatory overt expletive pronouns persistently problematic null expletives

are produced until late development: “In winter, snows a lot in Canada” [See White 1986, Phinney 1987; Tsimpli &

Roussou, 1991]

Prediction: L1 Spa – L2 Eng advanced levels: production/acceptance of (1) VS with a null expletive, but not (2) VS with null referential subject

L1 Spanish L2 English(1) pro expl existen problemas √exist problems(2) pro llegué ayer arrived yesterday

55

Also evidence that L1 Spanish learners also omit expletive it in extraposition structures (examples from Spa ICLE corpus by Hannay & Martínez Caro 2008: 241):

Finally must be added that in our days it is necessary for a country to be provided with a good army.. [ICLE-SP-UCM-0013.4]

Talking about the rehabilitation is important to consider two points. The first one is … [ICLE-SP-UCM-0018.4]

BUT, if so: Why are VS structures restricted to unaccusatives in L2 Eng since in

languages like L1 Italian / Spanish we can find VS with all verbs classes?

Why are our learners’ postverbal subject rates relatively low (7.1%)? (they mainly produced grammatical SV (92.9%).

Experimental work shows that Spanish natives significantly (and drastically) prefer VS to SV with unaccusatives, yet SV to VS with unergatives (Hertel 2003, Lozano 2003, 2006a). Hence, if L1 transfer was the only reason for the occurrence of VS structures, we would expect our learners to show higher VS rates, which is contrary to fact.

All this could be explained by the ‘transfer’ account, as well as the fact that

L1 French learners do not produce Ø-V-S structures.

56

It VS L2 English:a preliminary analysis

It VS shows learners are aware that the subject position must be filled by an overt element in English VS structures [EPP]. BUT despite positive evidence (e.g. there-insertion), it is the

preferred expletive. Reason??Unlike there whose primary use is ‘adverbial’ it is always

‘nominal’ (Oshita 2004)

(1) Mrs Ramsay is dead yet it remains something like a glow [ICLE fruc1046]

(2)…and there remains a great deal more to say on the subject [ICLE frub1022]

Further evidence: incorrect VS with extraposition: Hannay & Martínez Caro (2008: 241):(3) … In my opinion it is very logic the idea of having

voluntary soldiers in the army [ICLE-SP-UCM-004.3]

Some authors argue that these constructions are due to transfer:

“The Spanish learners seem to transfer the postverbal subject of the Spanish construction incorrectly, and once they have done so, they apply the rule of obligatory subject in English by filling in the preverbal slot with dummy it as in extrapositions” (Hannay & M. Caró, 2008: 241).

BUT: while transfer can explain V-S only, it cannot explain why we have expletive “it”, nor why it-V-S is more frequent than Ø-V-S.

57

There VS in L2 English:a preliminary analysis

There-constructions (as in There remain several problems) are rarely used by L2 learners of pro-drop languages. [Oshita (2004) also notices this fact for Korean and Japanese speakers of L2

English].

Input could be affecting these results due to its low frequency in native English (see Biber et al. 1999).

BUT Eexistential there-constructions are introduced early in instructed contexts (Palacios Martínez and Martínez-Insúa 2006), so they must be high frequency structures in the input and instruction learners receive.

Input is a tricky factor, as its role is not fully understood yet in SLA.

Also: there-V-S is learned as formulaic or prefabricated chunks with the V be the whole structure is rote-learnt and selected from the lexicon, it is not productive, it is not assembled/merged in the narrow syntax.

Thus, there may not be used as an independent expletive until learners reach a very advanced level (Oshita 2004: fn 2).

Back to basics LEXICON H1

COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEM Syntax

PF LF

H2 H3

SM systems C-I systems

Lexicon-syntax: native-like knowledge (Unacc. Hypothesis)

Deficits located in numeration when selecting preverbal element (it, Ø, there) PROCESSING LIMITATION or FEATURE MISREPRESENTATION??Syntax-

phonology: native-like knowledge (Eng-Weight)

Syntax-discourse: native-like knowledge (Eng-Focus)


A NOTE ON CONVERGING EVIDENCE IN SLA

60

Less control

More

control

Naturalistic data

Exploratory research

• Corpora• Diaries• Unstructured

interviews• Think-aloud

Medium degree of control

• Structured interviews

• Semi-structured questionnaires

Experimental data

Hypothesis-testing research• Experiments• Discrete-point

tests• Structured

questionnaires

•MANY METHODS for data collection, largely depends on…

• your research hypotheses.• your linguistic paradigm/model (generative

grammar, functional grammar, interaction, etc).• the degree of control.• your subjects/informants .

RECOMMENDED READING: Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated. [An excellent monograph on methods to elicit different types of data in SLA]

Experimental vs. Corpus L2 data

Converging evidence on SV/VSCyclic process: Unaccusative Hypothesis is tested

experimentally (Lozano 2006a, 2006b).

Unaccusative hypothesis is tested in natural data, and is refined [unaccusativiy = necessary but not sufficient] and yields new hypotheses and structural patterns. (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008, 2010)

New experiments are designed to test those hypotheses and the status of those patterns as part of the L2 mental grammar [convergence or divergence].

This will yield new hypotheses to be tested in corpora?

1. EXPER

2. CORPUS

3. EXPER

4. CORPUS?

Research cycle: nature of data

We are here now

Real need to use converging evidence on the same lingusitic phenomenon in SLA


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Key studies: unaccusativity in SLA

Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22 (2), 1-43.

Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, pp. 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lozano, C. (2008). The Acquisition of Syntax and Discourse: Pronominals and Word Order in English and Greek Learners of Spanish. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, pp. 85-125. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2010). Interface conditions on postverbal subjects: a corpus study of L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4): 475-497.

Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76 (1), 28-55.

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13 (1), 1-9.

Beaman, K. (1984). Co-ordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.), Conversational style, pp. 45-80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Belletti, A. (2001). "Inversion" as focalization. In A. Hulk & J. Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, pp. 60-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the lower IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 2), pp- 16-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Belletti, A., & Leonini, C. (2004). Subject inversion in L2 Italian. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace, & O. Mitsuhiko (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 4, pp. 95-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Belletti, A., Bennati, E., & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 657-689.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70 (2), 233-259.

Birner, B. J. (1995). Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua, 97, 233-256. Birner, B. J. & Ward, G. (1993). There-sentences and inversion as distinct constructions: A functional

account. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 19, 27-39. Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bolinger, D. (1954). Meaningful word order in Spanish. Boletín de Filología, 7, 45-56. Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman. Bresnan, J. (1994). Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language, 70 (1), 71-

131. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step:

Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89-156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-22. Cole, M. (2000). The syntax, morphology, and semantics of Null Subjects. Unpublished PhD Thesis:

University of Manchester.

Culicover, P. W., & Levine, R. D. (2001). Stylistic inversion in English: a reconsideration. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 283-310.

Dijkstra, T. & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175-197.

de Miguel, E. (1993). Construcciones ergativas e inversión en la lengua y la interlengua española. In J. M. Liceras (ed.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, pp. 178-195. Ottawa: Dovehouse.

Domínguez, L. (2004). Mapping focus: The syntax and prosody of focus in Spanish. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Boston University.

Eguren, L., & Fernández Soriano, O. (2004). Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos.

Epstein, S. D. (1999). Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.) Working minimalism, pp. 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Fernández Soriano, O. (1993). Sobre el orden de palabras en español. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica, 11, 113-151.

Frampton, J. & Gutmann, S. (1999). Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2, 1–27.

Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (eds.) (2002). International Corpus of Learner English (inc. CD ver 1.1). Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism : Language and Cognition 1, 67-81.

Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19 (4), 273-304.

Hirakawa, M. (1999). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs by speakers of English and Chinese. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language, pp. 89-114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Huang, C.-T.J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 531-574.

Ivanov, I. P. (2009). Second language acquisition of Bulgarian object clitics: A test case for the Interface Hypothesis. Unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Iowa.

Jaeggli, O., & Safir, K. (eds.) (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of

conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 85-111.

Kaltenböck, G. (2005). It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English: A study of syntax in spoken and written texts. Vienna: Wilhem Braumüller.

Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74 (2), 245-273.

Klein, W. & C. Perdue (1992). Utterance structure. Developing grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211-258. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics

interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liceras, J., Soloaga, B., & Carballo, A. (1994). Los conceptos de tema y rema:

problemas sintácticos y estilísticos de la adquisición del español. Hispanic Linguistics, 5 (1-2), 43-88.

Lozano, C. (2003). Universal Grammar and focus constraints: The acquisition of pronouns and word order in non-native Spanish. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Essex.

Lozano, C. (2006a). Focus and split intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22 (2), 1-43.

Lozano, C. (2006b). The development of the syntax-discourse interface: Greek learners of Spanish. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages, pp. 371-399. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & B. Díez (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, pp. 85-125. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2009a). “It exist(s) many problems”: Learner language in learner corpora and the study of SLA. Paper presented at ICAME 30, University of Lancaster, UK.

Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2009b). Discourse before syntax in non-native grammars: converging evidence. Plenary talk given at Workshop on Interfaces in L2 Acquisition, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.

Margaza, P & Bel, A. (2006). Null Subjects at the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface: Evidence from Spanish Interlanguage of Greek Speakers. Grantham et al (eds) Proceedings of GASLA 2006. Cascadilla Press.

Mendikoetxea, A. (2006). Unergatives that ‘become’ unaccusatives in English locative inversion: a lexical-syntactic approach. In C. Copy and L. Gournay (eds.) Points de vue sur l’inversion. Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglaise de l’Énonciation, Tome 9, pp-133-155. Paris: Editions Orphys.

Mendikoetxea, A., O’Donnell, M. and Rollinson, P. (forthcoming). WriCLE: A learner corpus for second language acquisition research. To appear in Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2009 (URL: http://www.liv.ac.uk/english/CL2009/Proceedings.htm

Meunier F. (2000). A computer corpus linguistics approach to interlanguage grammar: noun phrase complexity in advanced learner writing. Unpublished PhD thesis: Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.

Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15 (2), 191-219.

Montrul, S. (2004). Psycholinguistic evidence for split intransitivity in Spanish second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 239-267.

Ortega, L. (2000) Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level writing. Applied Linguistics 24 (4): 492-518.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/english/CL2009/Proceedings.htm

Ortega-Santos, I. (2005). On Locative Inversion and the EPP in Spanish. Paper presented at VIII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística del Noroeste, Universidad de Sonora, México.

Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16 (4), 293-324.

Oshita, H. (2004). Is there anything there when there is not there? Null expletives and second language data. Second Language Research, 20 (2), 95-130.

Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description and language teaching: native and learner use of existential there. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 213-231.

Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157-189. Berkeley: University of California.

Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2010) Child L2 development of syntactic and discourse properties of Spanish subjects, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (2):185-206.

Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, pp. 223-255. London: Academic Press.

Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In S. Thompson & W. Mann (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text, pp. 295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar,

pp. 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography

of syntactic structures (Vol. 3), pp. 223-251. New York: Oxford University Press. Rochemont, M. (1986). A Theory of stylistic rules in English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: University

of Massachusetts at Amherst. Rutherford, W. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.),

Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 163-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, M. (2004). Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Downloadable version at: http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/ ]

Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of unaccusativity in non-native grammars of Italian. Second Language Research, 9 (1), 22-47.

http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/

Sorace, A. (2003). Near-nativeness. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 130-151. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 143-145.

Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, pp. 55-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. (forthcoming). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism.

Taboada, M. (1995). Theme markedness in English and Spanish: A systemic-functional approach. Unpublised manuscript: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Torrego, E. (1989). Unergative-Unaccusative Alternations in Spanish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 253-272.

Tsimpli, I. & A. Sorace (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 653-664. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Vallduví, E. (1993). The informational component. University of Pennsylvania: IRCS Technical Reports Series. Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research, 26, 347-361. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford, California: CSLI. White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: an

investigation of the Pro-drop parameter. In V. J. Cook (ed.), experimental approaches to second language acquisition, pp. 55-72. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

White, L. (forthcoming). Grammatical theory: interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Leeds: Emerald.

Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37 (2), 275-296.

Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, pp. 203-221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


ADDITIONAL SLIDES

71

VS in SLA: syntax-discourse

(2) (Lozano 2006a, 2006b)

Instrument: Contextualised acceptability judgement test

Groups Spanish native controls

n=14

L1 Greek L2 Spa n=18

L1 English L2 Spa n= 17

Proficiency Mean = 92% (range 80% - 100%)

Mean = 90% (range 80% - 100%)

Tú estás en una fiesta con tu amiga Laura. Laura sale de la habitación y en ese

momento llega la policía porque hay mucho ruido en la fiesta. Cuando Laura

vuelve, te pregunta: ‘¿Quién llegó?’ Tú contestas:

(a) La policía llegó. –2 –1 0 +1 +2

(b) Llegó la policía. –2 –1 0 +1 +2

‘You are at a party with your friend Laura. Laura leaves the room and at that

moment the police arrive because the party is too noisy. When Laura comes back,

she asks you: ‘Who arrived?’ You answer:

(a) The police arrived –2 –1 0 +1 +2

(b) Arrived the police –2 –1 0 +1 +2’

Translation

Advanced proficiency (Univ Wisconsin College Placement Test)

72

VS in SLA: syntax before discourse?

Lozano (2006a, 2006b): There is no reasons to think that learners are not

sensitive to the topic/focus distinction, as it is present in L1 (in fact, it is universal: Vallduví 1993, 1995, Vallduví & Engdahl 1996).

Learners are sensitive to discourse status but are unable to encode it syntactically with the pragmatically most adequate word order syntactic deficit

In line with findings by Domínguez and Arche (2008):

▪ Availability of optional forms can be accounted for by a purely syntactic deficit, probably due to apparently ambiguous input occurs

73

VS in SLA: syntax-discourse (3)Results: neutral contexts (Lozano)

Unergatives (SV) Unaccusatives (VS)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spanish Greek English

SV

! VS

Convergence with natives (native-like knowledge)

0

20

40

60

80

100


! SV

VS

sig sig sig sig sig sig

74

VS in SLA: syntax-discourseResults: focused contexts (Lozano)

¿Quién gritó / llegó? “Who shouted / arrived?”

Unergatives (VS) Unaccusatives (VS)

0

20

40

60

80

100


! SV

VS

Divergence with natives (subtype: optionality)

0

20

40

60

80

100


! SV

VS

sig sign.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. (just)

75

H1: Syntax-lexiconNs vs NNs: Verbs in VS structures

LOCNESS: inv/total concs

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,1

1,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,7

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0% 0,5% 1% 1,5% 2% 2,5% 3%

AP P EAR

ARISE

ARRIVE

AWAKE

BEGIN

COME

DEVELOP

DIE

DISAP P EAR

DROP

EMERGE

ENTER

ESCAP E

EXIST

FALL

FLOW

FOLLOW

GO

GROW

HAP P EN

HIDE

LEAVE

LIVE

OCCUR

P ASS

REMAIN

RETURN

RISE

SETTLE

SP READ

SURVIVE

Frequency of inversion (%)

Spanish ICLE & WriCLE: inv/total concs

1,7

0,2

0,0

0,0

0,6

0,5

0,1

0,1

0,1

0,0

0,2

0,0

0,0

2,9

0,1

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,2

0,0

0,1

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0% 0,5% 1% 1,5% 2% 2,5% 3%

AP P EAR

ARISE

ARRIVE

AWAKE

BEGIN

COME

DEVELOP

DIE

DISAP P EAR

DROP

EMERGE

ENTER

ESCAP E

EXIST

FALL

FLOW

FOLLOW

GO

GROW

HAP P EN

HIDE

LEAVE

LIVE

OCCUR

P ASS

REMAIN

RETURN

RISE

SETTLE

SP READ

SURVIVE


76

H2: measuring weight

Table 1: A syntactic scale for measuring syntactic weight SYNTACTIC WEIGHT SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE

NOMINAL SCALE ORDINAL SCALE

0 (D) N PRN

LIGHT

1 (D) ADJ N

(D) N

(D) ADJ* N 2

(D) (ADJ) N*

PP

(D) (D)

(ADJ)

N N

PP* AdjP*

(D) ADJ N PP

(D) N IP/CP

(D) (ADJ) N* PP*

HEAVY

3

(D) ADJ N* (PP*)

Notes: (i) The asterisk (*) represents a complex (i.e., recursive) categorical or phrasal structure. (ii) Parentheses indicate the optional realization of the bracketed category or phrase.

We used this

77

CORPUS STUDY #2V-S structures in:● L1 Spa – L2 Eng● L1 Ital – L2 Eng

● Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: a corpus analysis. In: Gilquin, G., Papp, S., Díez-Bedmar, M.B. (eds). Linking up contrastive and corpus learner research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85-125.

● Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Verb-Subject order in L2 English: new evidence from the ICLE corpus. In: Monroy, R. & Sánchez, A. (eds). 25 años de Lingüística Aplicada en España: Hitos y retos / 25 Years of Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges. Murcia: Editum, pp. 97-113.

● Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2007). Learner corpora and the acquisition of word order: A study of the production of Verb-Subject structures in L2 English. In: Matthew Davies, Paul Rayson, Susan Hunston, Pernilla Danielsson (eds) Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2007, University of Birmingham. [available online]

78

Corpus Study #2 Italian/Spanish L1 - English L2

Main question: Do learners (with different L1s) produce

postverbal subjects under the same conditions as Eng natives do, irrespective of problems with their syntactic enconding (grammaticality)?

ENGLISH and SPANISH/ITALIAN differ in devices employed for constituent ordering: English ‘fixed’ order is determined by lexico-syntactic properties and Spanish/Italian ‘free’ order is determined by information structure, syntax-discourse properties.

79

Method (2) Learner corpus: L1 Spa – L2 Eng; L1 Ital – L2 Eng

ICLE (Granger et al. 2002)

(Problem: proficiency level?)

WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004) Concordance queries can be performed automatically with

WordSmith, by targetting specific verbs BUT there is a lot of manual work (filtering out unusable data, coding data in Excel, analysing data in SPSS, etc).

Corpus Number of essays Number of words

ICLE Spanish 251 200,376

ICLE Italian 392 227,085

TOTAL 643 427,461

Subcorpus V type # usable concordances Unergative 153 Spanish Unaccusative 640 Unergative 143 Italian Unaccusative 574

TOTAL 1510

80

H1 results: syntax-lexicon 100%

0%

92%

8.10%

100%

0%

97%

2.60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SV VS SV VS

Unerg Unac

% o

f pro

du

ctio

n

Spanish

Italian

Subcorpus V type # postverbal S # usable concordances Rate (%) Spanish Unergative 0 153 0/153 (0%) Unaccusative 52 640 52/640 (8.1%) Italian Unergative 0 143 0/143 (0%) Unaccusative 15 574 15/574 (2.6%)

81

H1: Unaccusative VS: grammatical vs ungrammatical

Locative inversion:In some places still exist popularly supported death penalty.

(L1 Spa)…on the earth lived people which were born-criminal.

(L1 Ital) There-insertion:

…there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid.(L1 Spa)

…there still remains a predominance of men over women. (L1 Ital)

AdvP-insertion:Then come the necessity to earn more…

(L1 Spa)Later came a world of disorder…

(L1 Ital)

* it-insertion:*In the name of religion it had occurred many important events …

(L1 Spa)*…it still live some farmers who have field and farmhouses.

(L1 Ital) * Ø-insertion:

…exist volunteers with such a feeling against it.(L1 Spa)

…exist factors which, on long term, can predispose human mind to that crime… (L1 Ital)

* XP-insertion:…and from this moment begins the avarice.

(L1 Spa)[no instances found in Italian corpus]

GRAM.

UNGRAM.

Spanish Italian Spanish

34.6%

65.4%

Unac VS Gram

Unac VS Ungram

Italian

46.7%53.3%

Unac VS Gram

Unac VS Ungram

82Preverbal structure

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Pro

du

cti

on

ra

te (

%)

13

20

7

0

33

27

121010

1515

38

VS Italian ICLE

VS Spanish ICLEGroup

Result: Unaccusative:Type of VS structures

83

Result H1: VS and specific unaccusative verbsL1 Spa vs L1 Ital

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.0

0.5 0.0 0.0

0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.2 0.0

1.7 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.3

0.0 0.0

3.4 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.3 0.0

0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

APPEAR ARISE

ARRIVE AWAKE

BEGIN COME

DEVELOP DIE

DISAPPEAR DROP

EMERGE ENTER

ESCAPE EXIST FALL

FLOW FOLLOW

GO GROW

HAPPEN HIDE

LEAVE LIVE

OCCUR PASS

REMAIN RETURN

RISE SETTLE

SPREAD SURVIVE


Spa Ital

84


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122 232425

Weight (# of words)

VS Spanish ICLE

VS Italian ICLE

SV Spanish ICLE

SV Italian ICLE

85

Examples H2: syntax-phonology

SV: typically LIGHT

…these people should exist, … (L1 Spa)

Violence does exist … (L1 Ital)

VS: typically HEAVY…it will not exist a machine or something able to imitate the human imagination (L1 Spa)…emerges the people’s ignorance in having prejudices (L1 Ital)

86


1.9%

98.1%

90.6%

9.4%

0.0%

100.0%

11.1%

88.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Top Foc Top Foc

SV VS

Spanish

Italian

Discourse status (topic/focus) has to be measured manually by establishing theoretical criteria and then by checking the context (or even the essay) manually

87

Examples H3: syntax-discourse

VS: FOCUS

In the world, dominated by science, technology and industrialisation, there is no a place for dreaming and imagination. Thanks to science and its consecuences, technology and insdustrialisation, appeared the big factories and the capitalism system. (L1 Spa)

It seems impossible, but although we have now reached through technology a high standard of life, we are very pessimists. It seems as progress has stolen our imagination and therefore the love for small things. I can give few examples that such a fact: television is becoming lately the killer of conversation between parents and children; it is almost disappearing the use of writing nice letters to friends, since there is the telephone. (L1 Ital)

SV: typically TOPIC

The approval of acting of women were something essential. Women started to perform female characters and this contribute to give a sexual and realistic atmosphere. […] Female characters appear with a stronger personality they really love these men. (L1 Spa)

The idea of Europe doesn’t ignore these differences, but inglobes them, accept them and upon them construct its identity. […] If I think of the concept of Europe I cannot think of anything else that of a whole of different countries, but that all together produce the European identity. The differences have always existed in the Europe and for ages its peoples fought one against the other. (L1 Ital)

88

Conclusion

V S

S V

Unacc FocusHeavy

UnaccTopicLight

Interfaces:

Lexicon-syntax

Syntax-discourse

Syntax-phonology

89

Overall pictureOVERALL PICTURECORPUS DATAV-S structures in:● L1 Spa – L2 Eng● L1 Ital – L2 Eng● L1 Fre – L2 Eng

90

NNS vs. NS: comparisons across different NNS

97,4

91,9 92,9

97,7 97,8

2,6

8,1 7,1

2,3 2,2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Italian ICLE Spanish ICLE Spanish ICLE &WriCLE

French ICLE LOCNESS

Fre

qu

ency

(%

) o

f V

S p

rod

uct

ion

SV

VS

cristóbal lozano [email protected] cristoballozano joint work with amaya mendikoetxea (uam)...

Documents

l2 eng l1 spa

l1 eng l2 spa

l1 eng l2 ital

l1 ital l2 spa

l1 spa eng

l1 spa l2 english

l1 spa l2 greek

l1 jap l2 eng