Week 10.Week 10.Functional projectionsFunctional projections

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far

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

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

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

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

acquiring language.acquiring language.

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far To what extent is UG still involved in L2A?To what extent is UG still involved in L2A? Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of Speaker’s “interlanguage” shows a lot of

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

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

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

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far

We met a number of hypotheses about the We met a number of hypotheses about the extent to which UG constrains L2A; the extent to which UG constrains L2A; the full full accessaccess proposal which claims that L2’ers proposal which claims that L2’ers can set parameters in their IL to any value can set parameters in their IL to any value allowed by UG, the allowed by UG, the indirect accessindirect access proposal proposal which claims that L2’ers are stuck with the which claims that L2’ers are stuck with the parameters originally as originally set in parameters originally as originally set in their L1, and the their L1, and the partial access partial access proposal proposal which says that some parameters are re-which says that some parameters are re-settable, and others are not.settable, and others are not.

““UG in L2A” so farUG in L2A” so far We’ve seen evidence pointing in various directions. We’ve seen evidence pointing in various directions.

We expect that if a parameter is re-settable in the We expect that if a parameter is re-settable in the IL, IL, allall of the properties which follow from that of the properties which follow from that parameter setting should be found in the ILparameter setting should be found in the IL..

The binding theory results (English vs. Japanese vs. The binding theory results (English vs. Japanese vs. Russian) seem to suggest that Russian) seem to suggest that the parameters of the parameters of binding theory binding theory are are re-settable in the ILre-settable in the IL..

Head-parameter results also point toward re-Head-parameter results also point toward re-settabilitysettability..

The verb-raising results (English vs. French) seem The verb-raising results (English vs. French) seem to suggest that to suggest that the verb-raising parameter is the verb-raising parameter is notnot re-settable in the ILre-settable in the IL..

Conclusions?Conclusions? Although it will be hard to find two Although it will be hard to find two

researchers who wholly agree, it seems researchers who wholly agree, it seems like we have some reason to believe that:like we have some reason to believe that: UG UG doesdoes constrain IL and second languages constrain IL and second languages

Perhaps “via L1”Perhaps “via L1” For at least For at least some some parameters, L2’ers are parameters, L2’ers are

pretty much stuck with the L1 settings, pretty much stuck with the L1 settings, although for others, L2’ers can acquire a although for others, L2’ers can acquire a language with any of the settings made language with any of the settings made available by UG.available by UG.

For many parameters, transfer of the L1 For many parameters, transfer of the L1 settings seem to be the starting point.settings seem to be the starting point.

What else is there?What else is there? Principles & Parameters models of UG provide a Principles & Parameters models of UG provide a

strong theoretical backdrop against which we can strong theoretical backdrop against which we can ask detailed questions about the systematicity of an ask detailed questions about the systematicity of an L2’ers IL knowledge.L2’ers IL knowledge.

Nevertheless the “UG approach” we’ve looked at so Nevertheless the “UG approach” we’ve looked at so far has been primarily concerned with far has been primarily concerned with whatwhat is (or is (or can be) learned— not so much can be) learned— not so much howhow it is learned or it is learned or what conditions affect this learning.what conditions affect this learning.

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the developmentdevelopment of L2 phrase structure in some of L2 phrase structure in some detail—concentrating to some extent on the detail—concentrating to some extent on the headedness parameter.headedness parameter.

They are looking at They are looking at naturalisticnaturalistic L2A (migrant L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 workers in Germany with different L1 backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]).[SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]).

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

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

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

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

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

my

DP

V DP

V

VP

make

a house

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

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

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme

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

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

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

I

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

colorme

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

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrP

my

DP

T

T

TP

V

DPi

V

VP

making

what

ti

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

that

she

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VPwill

eatlunch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

Vainikka & Young-Scholten (various Vainikka & Young-Scholten (various publications) look at publications) look at naturalisticnaturalistic L2A (migrant L2A (migrant workers in Germany with different L1 workers in Germany with different L1 backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], backgrounds, including Turkish [SOV], Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian Korean [SOV], Spanish [SVO], and Italian [SVO]).[SVO]).

Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the Vainikka & Young-Scholten explore the development of L2 phrase structure in some development of L2 phrase structure in some detail—and also have chosen speakers that detail—and also have chosen speakers that can be informative concerning the possible can be informative concerning the possible transfer of headedness parameter.transfer of headedness parameter.

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

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

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

L1 L1 head head-final VPs in L2

Korean/Turkish final 98

Italian/Spanish (I) initial 19

Italian/Spanish (II) initial 64

V&YS—headedness V&YS—headedness transfertransfer

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

NL VPs V-initial V-final

Bongiovanni I 20 13 (65%) 7

Salvatore I 44 35 (80%) 9

Jose S 20 15 (75%) 5

Rosalinda S 24 24 (100%) 0

Antonio S 68 20 48 (71%)

Jose S 37 23 14 (38%)

Lina I 24 7 17 (71%)

Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76%)

PredictionsPredictions

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

PredictionsPredictions

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

auxiliaries appear auxiliaries appear therethere

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

Subject agreement is Subject agreement is controlled therecontrolled there

CC Complementizers Complementizers

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

movement to CPmovement to CP

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

PredictionsPredictions

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

raising.raising. No consistent No consistent

agreement with the agreement with the subject.subject.

No modals or No modals or auxiliaries.auxiliaries.

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

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

Agr

Agr

AgrPC

C

CP

DP

T

T

TP

V DP

V

VP

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage

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

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

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

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

complementizers complementizers (CP)(CP)

whwh-movement (CP)-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

VP Kor 1 1 68

VP Tur 0 1 75

VP-i It 0 0 34 (65)

VP-ii It 0 0 29 (63)

VP-i Sp 8 5 74

VP-ii Sp 1 1 57

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

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

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

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

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

V&YS L2A—VP stageV&YS L2A—VP stage

The early Italian & Spanish files The early Italian & Spanish files showed little in the way of adverbs, showed little in the way of adverbs, though 9/10 negative utterances though 9/10 negative utterances had negation before the verb.had negation before the verb.

The later files showed more The later files showed more adverbs, but no usable negation; adverbs, but no usable negation; 7/7 of the verbs preceded the 7/7 of the verbs preceded the adverbs (‘now’, ‘always’).adverbs (‘now’, ‘always’). It’s not completely clear where the 7/9 It’s not completely clear where the 7/9

claim in V&YS (1996a) came from.claim in V&YS (1996a) came from.

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

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

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

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

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

V&YS L2A—TP stageV&YS L2A—TP stage

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

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

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

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

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

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

stage L1 Aux Mod Default

TP Sp 21 9 41

TP Tur [0] 5 68–75

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vainikka & Young-Vainikka & Young-ScholtenScholten

Summary of the proposed stagesSummary of the proposed stages

Top XP

V-mmt

aux/modals

obligsubjs

S–Vagrt

embedded w/ C

question formation

VP no no no no no no

FP opt some no no no no

AgrP yes yes yes yes no no

StagesStages So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages…So, L2’ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages… An important point about this is that this does An important point about this is that this does notnot

mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is mean that a L2 learner at a given point in time is necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly necessarily in exactly one stage, producing exactly one kind of structure.one kind of structure.

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 This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of 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—some implicationsV&YS—some implications

V&YS on transfer: V&YS on transfer: Under modern views, the Under modern views, the parameters parameters are properties of the functional headsare properties of the functional heads, the XPs above VP , the XPs above VP (like TP, AgrP, and CP). If all you transfer from the L1 is (like TP, AgrP, and CP). If all you transfer from the L1 is the VP, the VP, you don’t expect that parameters pertaining to you don’t expect that parameters pertaining to higher projections would transfer from the L1higher projections would transfer from the L1. For . For example, if having example, if having whwh-movement is a property of C, we -movement is a property of C, we wouldn’t expect (if V&YS are right) that having wouldn’t expect (if V&YS are right) that having whwh--movement would transfer from L1 to the IL.movement would transfer from L1 to the IL.

Yet we’ve seen that there is reason to believe that Yet we’ve seen that there is reason to believe that FrenchFrenchEnglish learners seem to transfer VEnglish learners seem to transfer VT movement, T movement, which should be a property of T. In response, V&YS which should be a property of T. In response, V&YS propose (essentially) that: propose (essentially) that: anyone anyone (regardless of their L1) (regardless of their L1) will assume Vwill assume VT initially (for reasons they give but I won’t T initially (for reasons they give but I won’t review).review).

Perhaps, but it’s testable at any rate.Perhaps, but it’s testable at any rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agr Agr before before TT

T T beforbefore Agre Agr

Both T Both T and Agr and Agr at outsetat outset

3pl 3pl before before tensetense

3pl 3pl after after tensetense

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

88 00 77 00 1212 33Past Past before before FutFut

Fut Fut before before PastPast

Both Fut Both Fut and Past and Past at outsetat outset

66 22 77

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

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

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

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

be that:be that:

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

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

Review:Review:Functional categories in Functional categories in

L1AL1A There is some debate concerning L1A and There is some debate concerning L1A and

children’s use of functional categories.children’s use of functional categories. Kids start out saying sentences that tend to Kids start out saying sentences that tend to

omit words we associate with functional omit words we associate with functional categories—they often do not inflect their categories—they often do not inflect their verbs (for tense or agreement, a property of verbs (for tense or agreement, a property of T), they often do not use determiners (D).T), they often do not use determiners (D).

Some researchers take this to be evidence Some researchers take this to be evidence that kids learn lexical categories first and that kids learn lexical categories first and only later move on to using functional only later move on to using functional categories.categories.

Review:Review:Functional categories in Functional categories in

L1AL1A Recently, it has become clearer that kids do Recently, it has become clearer that kids do seem to have access to (knowledge of) seem to have access to (knowledge of) functional categories and their properties.functional categories and their properties.

Across many languages, kids around age 2 Across many languages, kids around age 2 will sometimes use nonfinite verbs in main will sometimes use nonfinite verbs in main clauses.clauses.

Once kids start using finite verbs, Once kids start using finite verbs, they put they put them in the right placethem in the right place. When the French . When the French kid uses a nonfinite verb, s/he’ll put it after kid uses a nonfinite verb, s/he’ll put it after a negation marker a negation marker paspas, and when s/he uses , and when s/he uses a finite verb, s/he’ll put it before the a finite verb, s/he’ll put it before the negation marker negation marker paspas..

German and L1AGerman and L1A

Same in German.Same in German. When a 2-year-old When a 2-year-old

uses a finite verb, uses a finite verb, it goes in second it goes in second position; when a 2-position; when a 2-year-old uses a year-old uses a nonfinite verb it nonfinite verb it remains at the end remains at the end of the sentence of the sentence (after the object).(after the object).

—

I

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

ateJohnC+I

C

CP

—

—

lunch

Review:Review:Functional categories in Functional categories in

L1AL1A So, even though kids will sometimes use So, even though kids will sometimes use

nonfinite verbs, they nonfinite verbs, they know the differenceknow the difference between finite and nonfinite verb and between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. know how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one.sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one.

This raises the question (in the general This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners as to whether second language learners show this effect as well.show this effect as well.

Functional categoriesFunctional categories Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is

essentially the essentially the structural complexity structural complexity of the of the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point).learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point).

It has been pretty well established by theoretical It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that linguistics that adult native languages are quite adult native languages are quite complexcomplex, containing functional phrases like AgrP, , containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parametric differences idea that most if not all parametric differences stem from properties of the functional stem from properties of the functional morphemes.morphemes.

Functional categoriesFunctional categories Verb movement Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules of (if it conforms to the rules of

adult native-speaker verb movement, adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway) anyway) serves as serves as evidence for this complex evidence for this complex functional structurefunctional structure, since the verb , since the verb moves moves into a functional head (T, for example).into a functional head (T, for example).

The evidence we just reviewed suggests very The evidence we just reviewed suggests very strongly that kids learning German and strongly that kids learning German and French produce sentences which comply with French produce sentences which comply with the rules of adult syntax (that make reference the rules of adult syntax (that make reference to this complex functional structure). to this complex functional structure). Kids Kids seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain thereto.the rules that pertain thereto.

Functional categoriesFunctional categories

The question we’re about to look at is whether The question we’re about to look at is whether adult second language learners also have this adult second language learners also have this same complex structural knowledge in their IL. same complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words?Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words?

Note that if L2’ers can usually produce Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences which are grammatical in the TL but sentences which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated with that structure (i.e. that only with that structure (i.e. that only finitefinite verbs verbs move to T), we do not have evidence that their move to T), we do not have evidence that their mental representation of these sentences mental representation of these sentences includes the higher functional phrases like TP.includes the higher functional phrases like TP.

Prévost and White (1999, Prévost and White (1999, 2000)2000)

Prévost and White (1999, 2000) Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this very question, and here’s investigated this very question, and here’s what they found.what they found.

Like kids do during L1A, Like kids do during L1A, second language second language learners will sometimes omit, and learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide, inflectionsometimes provide, inflection (tense, (tense, subject agreement) on the verb.subject agreement) on the verb.

When there is tense or agreement, the verb When there is tense or agreement, the verb is is finitefinite (as opposed to being an infinitive). (as opposed to being an infinitive). In adult/native languages, finite verbs are In adult/native languages, finite verbs are generally the ones that move (like in French generally the ones that move (like in French and German).and German).

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White Prévost and White try to differentiate two Prévost and White try to differentiate two

possibilities of what their data might show, possibilities of what their data might show, given that second language learners sometimes given that second language learners sometimes use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t.use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t. Impairment Hypothesis. Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really The learners don’t really

(consistently) understand the inflection or how to (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. use it. Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”.Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs.Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs.

Missing Missing Surface Surface Inflection Hypothesis.Inflection Hypothesis. The The learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive formtheir infinitive form (the verbs (the verbs act act finite, finite, the the functional XP’s are therefunctional XP’s are there, but the learner couldn’t , but the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form).time, so s/he used the nonfinite form).

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White

Possibility 1 (Possibility 1 (impairmentimpairment) suggests ) suggests basically no correlation between verb basically no correlation between verb movement and inflection.movement and inflection.

Possibility 2 (Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite mispronouncing a finite verb by using its nonfinite formverb by using its nonfinite form) predicts ) predicts thatthat When the finite form is pronounced, the verb When the finite form is pronounced, the verb

will definitely be (and act) finite—it will will definitely be (and act) finite—it will move.move.

When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite.might act finite or nonfinite.

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White

P&W looked at spontaneous speech P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from two adults learning L2 data from two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan Arabic, after French (from Moroccan Arabic, after a year) and two adults learning L2 a year) and two adults learning L2 German (from Spanish and German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for about 2 years.interviews followed for about 2 years.

Prévost and White Prévost and White found…found… Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts.Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts.

When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation(overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). (i.e., they move).

Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contextsMany of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts ( (usedused finitely, finitely, moved).moved).

Oblig. FinOblig. Fin Oblig. NonfinOblig. Nonfin

+Fin+Fin -Fin-Fin -Fin-Fin +Fin+Fin

A(F)A(F) 767767 243243 278278 1717

Z(F)Z(F) 755755 224224 156156 22

A(G)A(G) 389389 4545 7676 77

Z(G)Z(G) 434434 8585 9898 66

Prévost and WhitePrévost and White

P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that:P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that: (These) second language learners (These) second language learners know the know the

difference between finite and nonfinite verbsdifference between finite and nonfinite verbs.. They They know that finite verbs move, and that know that finite verbs move, and that

nonfinite verbs do not movenonfinite verbs do not move.. The only real errors they make are essentially The only real errors they make are essentially

lexical retrieval errorslexical retrieval errors (errors of (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form.abstractly finite in their infinitive form.

L2A and L1AL2A and L1A

One thing this tells us is that, One thing this tells us is that, despite possible appearances to the despite possible appearances to the contrary, contrary, second language learners’ second language learners’ interlanguages are quite systematic interlanguages are quite systematic and complexand complex, and the L2 learners , and the L2 learners have the same kind of abstract have the same kind of abstract structural knowledge incorporated structural knowledge incorporated into their IL that we can argue for in into their IL that we can argue for in the case of L1 learners.the case of L1 learners.

L2A and L1L2A and L1

We don’t know really to what extent “UG” We don’t know really to what extent “UG” played a role, based only on this—after played a role, based only on this—after all, we know that the L1 had the full all, we know that the L1 had the full structural complexity of a natural structural complexity of a natural language, including the distinction language, including the distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite, and including (perhaps nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that knowledge of the no reason that knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’tcouldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) to simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A.the IL during L2A.

Schwartz 1998Schwartz 1998

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

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

reset in the IL.reset in the IL.

Let’s see if we can do what V&YS Let’s see if we can do what V&YS did without assuming short trees.did without assuming short trees.

Korean vs. TurkishKorean vs. Turkish Korean is strictly head-final, complements Korean is strictly head-final, complements

always come before the head.always come before the head. Turkish a mixed system, like German but Turkish a mixed system, like German but

perhaps even perhaps even more more mixed—one type of mixed—one type of ‘that’ is head-final, one type is head-initial.‘that’ is head-final, one type is head-initial. Ben [[Hasan ne ye-di Ø] Ben [[Hasan ne ye-di Ø] diyediye] merak et-ti-m] merak et-ti-m

I H. what eat-pst-3sg I H. what eat-pst-3sg diye diye curiosity do-curiosity do-pst-1sgpst-1sg‘I wondered what Hasan would eat.’‘I wondered what Hasan would eat.’

Duydum [Duydum [ki ki [sen gel-ecek-sin]][sen gel-ecek-sin]]I-heard that you-sg come-fut-2sgI-heard that you-sg come-fut-2sg‘I heard that you will come.’‘I heard that you will come.’

Korean vs. TurkishKorean vs. Turkish

V+I

I

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

C

C

CP

—

—

Suppose that this is initial state… SOV stage, non-Suppose that this is initial state… SOV stage, non-finiteness not really an indicator of anything.finiteness not really an indicator of anything.

I

I

IP

DP

Spec

V

VP

C

C

CP

DP

V

Korean vs. TurkishKorean vs. Turkish

—

I

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

C+V+I

C

CP

—

—

Next stage has “optional V-movement”. Probably competing Next stage has “optional V-movement”. Probably competing stages, addition of I-to-C; or reversal of I and VP.stages, addition of I-to-C; or reversal of I and VP.

I

I

IP

DP

Spec

V

VP

C

C

CP

DP

V

Empirical complaints Empirical complaints about Minimal Treesabout Minimal Trees

Remember White’s (1991) French-Remember White’s (1991) French-speaking learners of English.speaking learners of English.

They seemed to like SVAO order, They seemed to like SVAO order, which is allowed in French because which is allowed in French because V moves to I.V moves to I.

Makes sense on a Full Transfer view; Makes sense on a Full Transfer view; they start out raising the V to I.they start out raising the V to I.

Empirical complaints Empirical complaints about Minimal Treesabout Minimal Trees

Doesn’t make sense on Minimal TreesDoesn’t make sense on Minimal Trees—only VP is transferred, at VP stage —only VP is transferred, at VP stage adverb should precede everything adverb should precede everything (VP adjunct). Ok, (VP adjunct). Ok, Adv (S) V OAdv (S) V O..

Now they get input:Now they get input: Mary always takes the metro.Mary always takes the metro. John carefully ate his pie.John carefully ate his pie.

Where’s the evidence that they Where’s the evidence that they should now raise the verb? Not in the should now raise the verb? Not in the inputinput!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spanish, ItalianSpanish, Italian

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

D

D

DP

N

adjective N

NP

…

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

Bongiovanni I 3/81/5

37.5%20.0%

Lina I 3/230/81/11

13.0%0.0%9.1%

Bruno I 9/3217/640/12

28.1%26.6%0.0%

Ana S 7/280/10

25.0%0.0%

Koreans K 1/102 1.0%

Turks T 0/103 0.0%

So…So…

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

The evidence for the tree building The evidence for the tree building approach doesn’t seem all that approach doesn’t seem all that strong anymore.strong anymore. No nice Case results like in L1.No nice Case results like in L1. Higher parameters seem to transferHigher parameters seem to transfer Morphology and finiteness somewhat Morphology and finiteness somewhat

separate.separate.