Week 13. L2 morphology v. Week 13. L2 morphology v. functional projectionsfunctional projections

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

MorphologyMorphology

In L1A, we observe that kids don’t In L1A, we observe that kids don’t always provide all of the morphology always provide all of the morphology that adults do.that adults do.

Traditionally, it was assumed that Traditionally, it was assumed that kids are learning the morphology kids are learning the morphology and the syntax and that at some and the syntax and that at some point they got it (say, when they point they got it (say, when they provide correct morphology 90% of provide correct morphology 90% of the time when it was required).the time when it was required).

MorphologyMorphology

A major recent development in the study of A major recent development in the study of how kids come to know the (by now, known to how kids come to know the (by now, known to be fabulously complicated, but yet relatively be fabulously complicated, but yet relatively language-independent) system of syntax was language-independent) system of syntax was in the observation that morphological errors in the observation that morphological errors are by no means random.are by no means random.

In particular, in a large number of languages, In particular, in a large number of languages, what seems to happen is that kids produce what seems to happen is that kids produce nonfinite forms of the verb—nonfinite forms of the verb—but but along with along with that comes the that comes the syntaxsyntax associated with non- associated with non-finiteness.finiteness.

German and L1AGerman and L1A

So, in German.So, 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

Functional categoriesFunctional categories 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 know between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. They are how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one.the wrong (nonfinite) one.

Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of morphology, will produce nonfinite forms…morphology, will produce nonfinite forms…

This raises the question (in the general This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners show to whether second language learners show this effect as well.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 stem from properties of the abstract abstract functional functional morphemes (often reflected in surface morphemes (often reflected in surface morphology).morphology).

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

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

However, it is different from L1A in that lack of However, it is different from L1A in that lack of finite inflection on the verb does not seem to finite inflection on the verb does not seem to correlate with being treated syntactically as an correlate with being treated syntactically as an infinitive.infinitive.

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). The nonfinite time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). The nonfinite form is essentially a form is essentially a defaultdefault..

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 difference know the difference

between finite and nonfinite verbsbetween finite and nonfinite verbs.. They They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite

verbs do not moveverbs do not move.. The only real errors they make are essentially The only real errors they make are essentially lexical lexical

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

One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what the the citationcitation form is? Is it due to the language-particular form is? Is it due to the language-particular morphology.morphology.

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.

Morphology ≠ syntaxMorphology ≠ syntax

This suggests that morphology is rather This suggests that morphology is rather distinct from syntax. It is possible to have the distinct from syntax. It is possible to have the syntax right and the morphology wrong. And to syntax right and the morphology wrong. And to some extent, morphology is not provided by some extent, morphology is not provided by UG, must be learned, and moreover must be UG, must be learned, and moreover must be retrievedretrieved..

The view of Distributed Morphology under The view of Distributed Morphology under which morphology is a separate system given which morphology is a separate system given the task of pronouncing a syntactic structure the task of pronouncing a syntactic structure (and which allows for the sort of defaults we (and which allows for the sort of defaults we seem to see) seems well suited to describe this.seem to see) seems well suited to describe this.

Morphology ≠ syntaxMorphology ≠ syntax

Various other studies describe a similar Various other studies describe a similar dissociation; obligatory subjects, dissociation; obligatory subjects, subject case, and verb position are all subject case, and verb position are all governed by syntactic governed by syntactic features/parameters attributed to features/parameters attributed to functional projections. And while L2’ers functional projections. And while L2’ers seem to get these right, they are seem to get these right, they are inconsistent with the morphology. (See inconsistent with the morphology. (See White ch. 6; Lardière, White, Schwartz, White ch. 6; Lardière, White, Schwartz, Prévost, …)Prévost, …)

Schwartz (2002)Schwartz (2002) Last year at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz Last year at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz

presented data of this sort looking at the gender presented data of this sort looking at the gender agreement and definiteness properties of Dutch agreement and definiteness properties of Dutch DPs, with the aim being to determine whether DPs, with the aim being to determine whether child L2 acquisition was more like child L1 child L2 acquisition was more like child L1 acquisition or more like adult L2 acquisition.acquisition or more like adult L2 acquisition.

What she found was that in terms of What she found was that in terms of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did it, but uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did it, but neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er did. But in neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er did. But in terms of word order, both kinds of L2’er went terms of word order, both kinds of L2’er went through a word order stage not attested in child through a word order stage not attested in child L1’ers’ development.L1’ers’ development.

Schwartz (2002)Schwartz (2002)

Schwartz concluded thatSchwartz concluded that child L2 is like child L1 wrt morphologychild L2 is like child L1 wrt morphology child L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntaxchild L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntax

Again, a dissociation between Again, a dissociation between morphology and syntax.morphology and syntax.

Why? Morphology is surface-evident Why? Morphology is surface-evident and frequent, why is there such and frequent, why is there such difficulty?difficulty?

thoughts re: Schwartz thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)(2002)

Jeff Lidz brought up the question of Jeff Lidz brought up the question of whether this might be due not so whether this might be due not so much to morphology, but to a much to morphology, but to a phonological effect. Either in terms phonological effect. Either in terms of an input filter (like the French of an input filter (like the French discussion earlier) or in terms of a discussion earlier) or in terms of a production constraint. Phonological production constraint. Phonological problems could in many ways mimic problems could in many ways mimic morphological problems.morphological problems.

thoughts re: Schwartz thoughts re: Schwartz (2002)(2002)

Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting point with respect to processing: there are point with respect to processing: there are processing results that indicate that adult processing results that indicate that adult L2’ers “need longer” to process incoming L2’ers “need longer” to process incoming data. While I’m not sure exactly what data. While I’m not sure exactly what studies he had in mind, taking that as given, studies he had in mind, taking that as given, perhaps the problem with morphology is perhaps the problem with morphology is that it just “comes too fast.” In the same that it just “comes too fast.” In the same kind of way that phonological filters might kind of way that phonological filters might keep morphological marking out of the keep morphological marking out of the “input data”, processing constraints might “input data”, processing constraints might also have this effect.also have this effect.

Language attritionLanguage attrition

It is a very common phenomenon It is a very common phenomenon that, having learned an L2 and that, having learned an L2 and having become quite proficient, one having become quite proficient, one will still “forget” how to use it after will still “forget” how to use it after a period of non-use.a period of non-use.

While very common, it’s not very While very common, it’s not very surprising—it’s like calculus. If L2 is surprising—it’s like calculus. If L2 is a skill like calculus, we’d expect this.a skill like calculus, we’d expect this.

L1L1 attrition attrition Much more surprising is the fact that Much more surprising is the fact that

sometimes under the influence of a dominant sometimes under the influence of a dominant L2, L2, skill in the skill in the L1L1 seems to go seems to go..

Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets the LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters in his/her head to match those parameters in his/her head to match those exhibited by the linguistic input. L1 is exhibited by the linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly successful… effortless, fast, uniformly successful… biologically driven, not learning in the biologically driven, not learning in the normal sense of learning a skill.normal sense of learning a skill.

So how could it suffer So how could it suffer attritionattrition? What are ? What are you left with?you left with?

UG in L2AUG in L2A

We’ve looked at the questions concerning We’ve looked at the questions concerning whether when learning a second language, whether when learning a second language, one can adapt the “parameter settings” in one can adapt the “parameter settings” in the new knowledge to the target settings the new knowledge to the target settings (where they differ from the L1 settings), but (where they differ from the L1 settings), but this is even more dramatic—it would seem this is even more dramatic—it would seem to actually be altering the to actually be altering the L1L1 settings. settings.

It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do attrited speakers seem to have changed attrited speakers seem to have changed parameter settings?parameter settings?

ItalianItalianEnglishEnglish Italian is a “null subject” languageItalian is a “null subject” language that that

allows the subject to be dropped in most allows the subject to be dropped in most cases where in English we’d use a pronouncases where in English we’d use a pronoun (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it

conveys something pragmatic: contrastive conveys something pragmatic: contrastive focus or change in topic)focus or change in topic)

English is a “non-null-subject” languageEnglish is a “non-null-subject” language that that does notdoes not allow the subject to be allow the subject to be dropped out, pronouns are required (even dropped out, pronouns are required (even sometimes “meaningless” like sometimes “meaningless” like itit or or therethere). ). Not required that a pronoun signal a Not required that a pronoun signal a change in topic.change in topic.

Italian, null subjectsItalian, null subjects Q: Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?Perchè Maria è uscite?

‘Why did M leave?’‘Why did M leave?’ A1: A1: LeiLei ha deciso di fare una ha deciso di fare una

passeggiatapasseggiata.. A2: A2: Ha deciso di fare une passenggiataHa deciso di fare une passenggiata..

‘She decided to take a walk.’‘She decided to take a walk.’

Monolingual Italian speaker would say Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2, but English-immersed native Italian A2, but English-immersed native Italian speaker will optionally produce (and speaker will optionally produce (and accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)

Reverse errors Reverse errors unattestedunattested

Q: Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?Perchè Maria è uscite?‘Why did Maria leave?’‘Why did Maria leave?’

A: A: *Perchè*Perchè ØØ è venuto a prederlaè venuto a prederla..‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her ‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her up.’up.’

That is, they don’t That is, they don’t forget how to use forget how to use null subjectsnull subjects so much as they so much as they broadenbroaden the contexts in which they the contexts in which they cancan use overt pronouns. use overt pronouns.

Postverbal subjectsPostverbal subjects

Q: Q: Chi ha starnutito?Chi ha starnutito? ‘Who sneezed?’ ‘Who sneezed?’ A1: A1: Gianni ha starnutito.Gianni ha starnutito. A2: A2: Ha starnutito Gianni.Ha starnutito Gianni.

Native speakers would say A2 due to Native speakers would say A2 due to the narrow focus; attrited speakers the narrow focus; attrited speakers will produce/allow A1 as well. will produce/allow A1 as well.

L1 attritionL1 attrition It seems that the acceptability of overt It seems that the acceptability of overt

pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) broadens pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) broadens compared to their L1, the acceptability of compared to their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns becomes more restricted.null pronouns becomes more restricted.

Pronouns in a null subject language are Pronouns in a null subject language are markedmarked—they are restricted to particular —they are restricted to particular discourse contexts ([+topic shift], discourse contexts ([+topic shift], according to Sorace).according to Sorace).

What seems to happen is that the What seems to happen is that the pronouns revert to the unmarked case pronouns revert to the unmarked case ([±topic shift] like in English).([±topic shift] like in English).

L1 attritionL1 attrition

Same goes for postverbal subjects—Same goes for postverbal subjects—it is a marked option for languages, it is a marked option for languages, and the L1 seems to be retreating to and the L1 seems to be retreating to the unmarked.the unmarked.

Like with pronouns, it seems to be Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a question of grammaticality but not a question of grammaticality but a question of felicity.a question of felicity.

L1 attritionL1 attrition Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more

susceptible to this kind of attrition then susceptible to this kind of attrition then others.others.

Sorace notes that the observed cases of Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition of this sort seem to be the ones attrition of this sort seem to be the ones involved with discourse and pragmatics, not involved with discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental grammatical settings. (The with fundamental grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is still a null-subject language, attrited Italian is still a null-subject language, for example—null subjects are still possible for example—null subjects are still possible and used only in places where null subjects and used only in places where null subjects should be allowed).should be allowed).

L1 attritionL1 attrition

So, we’re left with a not-entirely-So, we’re left with a not-entirely-inconsistent view of the world.inconsistent view of the world.

Parameter settings in L1 appear to Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe, but the discourse-pragmatic be safe, but the discourse-pragmatic constraints seem to be somehow constraints seem to be somehow susceptible to high exposure to susceptible to high exposure to conflicting constraints in other conflicting constraints in other languages.languages.

Language mixingLanguage mixing((SpanishSpanish--EnglishEnglish))

No, yo sí brincaba en el trampolineNo, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a when I was a senior.senior.‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’

La consulta eraLa consulta era eight dollars.eight dollars.‘The office visit was eight dollars.’‘The office visit was eight dollars.’

Well, I keep starting some.Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos los Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo.días escribo y ya dejo.‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write ‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’everything and then I stop.’

But it isn’t random…But it isn’t random… *El viejo man*El viejo man The old manThe old man *The old hombre*The old hombre El hombre viejoEl hombre viejo *The viejo hombre*The viejo hombre

*She sees lo.*She sees lo.

Certain mixes are not considered to be Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals.possible by fluent bilinguals.

How can we characterize what mixes are How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible?possible vs. impossible?

Prior effortsPrior efforts Several proposals have been offered to Several proposals have been offered to

account for what are good mixes and what account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981):Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981):

The equivalence constraint.The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each structure of the languages map onto each other.other.

The free morpheme constraint.The free morpheme constraint. A switch may A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme.and still retain a free morpheme.

PoplackPoplack Looking at the constraints on code-Looking at the constraints on code-

switching of this sorts can help us switching of this sorts can help us understand the understand the naturenature of (at least fluent) of (at least fluent) bilingual language representation.bilingual language representation.

One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to dedicated to mixingmixing. The Free Morpheme . The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?

Problems for PoplackProblems for Poplack

Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints:Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for Accounts for *estoy *estoy eateatiendoiendo, but leaves , but leaves unexplained:unexplained: The studentsThe students habian visto la pelicula italienhabian visto la pelicula italien.. *The student had*The student had visto la pelicua italien.visto la pelicua italien. *Los estudiantes habian*Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie.seen the Italian movie.

MoMotratartrataroa de nin kiroa de nin kirescatarescataroa n Pocajontasoa n PocajontasRef-Ref-treattreat-vsf about this 3s-3os--vsf about this 3s-3os-rescuerescue-vsf in P.-vsf in P.‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’

Problems for Poplack?Problems for Poplack?

*El no*El no wants to gowants to go *He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

**NoNo nitekititocnitekititoc notnot 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)

AmoAmo estoy trabajando estoy trabajandonotnot be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’ be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’

Problems for PoplackProblems for Poplack

*Tú*Tú tikoas tlakemetltikoas tlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘You will buy clothes’)(‘You will buy clothes’)

ElEl kikoas tlakmetlkikoas tlakmetlhe 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfhe 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf‘He will buy clothes’‘He will buy clothes’

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

Perhaps the most currently Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in building on recent developments in syntactic theory.syntactic theory.

One of the basic premises is that One of the basic premises is that languagelanguage parameters are properties of lexical itemsparameters are properties of lexical items (not of a language-wide grammar). (not of a language-wide grammar). E.g., E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English.the tense morpheme in English.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

The broad (“minimalist”) approach to The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to consist of grammar takes language to consist of two primary components.two primary components.

Computational systemComputational system (builds trees), (builds trees), language invariantlanguage invariant..

LexiconLexicon, , language particularlanguage particular. . Functional elements of the lexicon Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.encode the parameters of variation.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

MacSwan’s proposal is that MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentencesconstraints found on monolingual sentences.. (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing

is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be coherent.)language must be coherent.)

We can determine what are possible mixes by We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the (functional looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages.languages.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

The model of The model of code mixing is then just code mixing is then just like monolingual speechlike monolingual speech—the only —the only difference being that the words and difference being that the words and functional elements are not always functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language.a single language.

Where requirements Where requirements conflictconflict between between languages is where mixing will be languages is where mixing will be prohibited.prohibited.

Clitics, bound Clitics, bound morphemesmorphemes

Some lexical items in some languages Some lexical items in some languages are are cliticsclitics, they depend (usually , they depend (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the concept of Similar to the concept of bound bound morphememorpheme..

JohnJohn’s’s book. book. I shouldI shouldn’tn’t go. go.

Clitics essentially Clitics essentially fusefuse with their host. with their host.

Clitics, bound Clitics, bound morphemesmorphemes

Clitics generally cannot be stressed.Clitics generally cannot be stressed. *John*John’S’S bookbook *I*I couldcouldN’TN’T go.go.

Clitics generally form an inseparable Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host.unit with their host. ShouldShouldn’tn’t I go? I go? Should I not go?Should I not go? *Should I*Should I n’t n’t go?go?

Spanish Spanish nono

It turns out that Spanish It turns out that Spanish nono appears to appears to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions).be a clitic (despite spelling conventions).

¿Qué no dijo Juan?¿Qué no dijo Juan? ‘What didn’t J say?’‘What didn’t J say?’ *¿Qué sólo leyó Juan?*¿Qué sólo leyó Juan? (‘What did J only (‘What did J only

read?’)read?’) *¿Qué meramente leyó Juan?*¿Qué meramente leyó Juan?

(‘What did J merely read?’)(‘What did J merely read?’) *Juan no ha*Juan no ha nono hecho la tarea.hecho la tarea.

(‘J hasn’t (‘J hasn’t notnot done the task.’) done the task.’)

Nahuatl Nahuatl amoamo

In Nahuatl, In Nahuatl, amoamo ‘not’ does not ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic.appear to be a clitic.

Amo nio Amo nio amoamo niktati nowelti.niktati nowelti.Not 1s-go Not 1s-go notnot 1s-3Os-see my-sister 1s-3Os-see my-sister‘I’m not going to ‘I’m not going to not not see my sister.’see my sister.’

Spanish-Nahuatl mixingSpanish-Nahuatl mixing

**NoNo nitekititocnitekititoc notnot 1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’)

AmoAmo estoy trabajandoestoy trabajandonotnot be be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’

Now, we can begin to make sense of Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference in possible mixes at the difference in possible mixes at the point of negation between the point of negation between Spanish and Nahuatl.Spanish and Nahuatl.

MacSwan 1999MacSwan 1999

MacSwan proposes essentially that MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not it is not possible to code-mix within a (word-like) possible to code-mix within a (word-like) phonological unitphonological unit. Essentially a restriction on . Essentially a restriction on what are “pronouncable” trees.what are “pronouncable” trees. Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules Idea: phonology operates as a set of ordered rules

which are ordered differently in different languages—which are ordered differently in different languages—you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the you can’t run both sets of rules at once, hence the result if you tried would be unpronounceable.result if you tried would be unpronounceable.

Since Spanish Since Spanish nono fuses with the following verb, it fuses with the following verb, it can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb.can’t be followed by a Nahuatl verb.

Since Nahuatl Since Nahuatl amoamo does not fuse with the does not fuse with the following verb, it is free to be followed by a following verb, it is free to be followed by a Spanish verb.Spanish verb.

English-SpanishEnglish-Spanish

This also explains Spanish-English (well, This also explains Spanish-English (well, Spanish-Spanish-anythinganything))

*El no *El no wants to gowants to go

What about English-Spanish?What about English-Spanish? *He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

*He doesn’t wants to go.*He doesn’t wants to go.

AgreementAgreement

In languages that code agreement between In languages that code agreement between subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is subject and verb, it also appears that mixing is only possible where the agreement relationship only possible where the agreement relationship is not disrupted.is not disrupted.

*He doesn’t*He doesn’t quiere irquiere ir..

English negation:English negation: agreement appears on agreement appears on dodo.. Spanish negation:Spanish negation: agreement appears on the agreement appears on the

verb.verb.

You can’t have You can’t have extraextra agreement: one subject, agreement: one subject, one agreement. They need to one agreement. They need to matchmatch..

AgreementAgreement **YoYo nikoas tlakemetlnikoas tlakemetl

II 1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf1s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘I will buy clothes’)(‘I will buy clothes’)

**TúTú tikoas tlakemetltikoas tlakemetl youyou 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘You will buy clothes’)(‘You will buy clothes’)

ÉlÉl//EllaElla kikoas tlakemetlkikoas tlakemetlHeHe//SheShe 3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf‘He/She will buy clothes’‘He/She will buy clothes’

AgreementAgreement NiNi-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’-k-koa-s ‘I will buy’ TiTi-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’-k-koa-s ‘You will buy’ ØØ-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’-k(i)-koa-s ‘He/she wlll buy’

Also relevant: Also relevant: Spanish marks and agrees with Spanish marks and agrees with gendergender but Nahuatl does not distinguish but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine from feminine.masculine from feminine.

Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The Nahuatl verb does not. Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be They can only be compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl agreement morpheme.agreement morpheme.

Spanish-Catalan-GreekSpanish-Catalan-Greek

SpanishSpanish and and CatalanCatalan both have two both have two genders, genders, masculinemasculine and and femininefeminine..

GreekGreek has three genders, has three genders, masculinemasculine, , femininefeminine, , neuterneuter..

Predicts:Predicts: Mixing subjects and verbs Mixing subjects and verbs between the three languages is only between the three languages is only possible between the gender-possible between the gender-compatible languages.compatible languages.

Spanish-Catalan-GreekSpanish-Catalan-Greek

YoYo vull mengar el dinar (S-C)vull mengar el dinar (S-C) JoJo queiro comer la cena (C-S)queiro comer la cena (C-S) **EgoEgo vull mengar el dinar (G-C)vull mengar el dinar (G-C) **EgoEgo queiro comer la cena (G-S)queiro comer la cena (G-S) ……

Mixing and L2A?Mixing and L2A?

Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a property of the speech of property of the speech of fluent bilingualsfluent bilinguals (often (often native bilingualsnative bilinguals) and reflects properties of ) and reflects properties of universal language knowledge.universal language knowledge.

We can now return to our old question and ask: We can now return to our old question and ask: Does the knowledge of second language learners Does the knowledge of second language learners also have the restrictions on code mixing?also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the To the extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of extent that this is “part of UG”, is this aspect of UG active for L2’ers? For the future—I’m not UG active for L2’ers? For the future—I’m not aware of studies on L2A.aware of studies on L2A.

Some major views on Some major views on L1A/syntaxL1A/syntax

Radford/Guilfoyle/NoonanRadford/Guilfoyle/Noonan: kids : kids lack functional elements initially, lack functional elements initially, have only lexical elements.have only lexical elements.

WexlerWexler: kids have access to all the : kids have access to all the same grammatical elements that same grammatical elements that adults do.adults do.

RizziRizzi: kids have “truncated trees”: kids have “truncated trees” VainikkaVainikka: kids “grow trees”: kids “grow trees”

L1A: Case errorsL1A: Case errors

Kids will sometimes make case errors Kids will sometimes make case errors with the subject (until around 2).with the subject (until around 2). Me got beanMe got bean.. In English, accusative (In English, accusative (meme) is the ) is the

“default.”“default.” Very often taken to indicate a subject not Very often taken to indicate a subject not

in SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? in SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford) Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, (Radford) Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No AgrSP? (Wexler)Vainikka)? No AgrSP? (Wexler)

L1A: Null subjectsL1A: Null subjects Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in

languages where null subjects are not allowed.languages where null subjects are not allowed. Hyams (1986)Hyams (1986): Mis-set parameter; they’re : Mis-set parameter; they’re

speaking Italian initially.speaking Italian initially. Kids who are learning null subject languages drop Kids who are learning null subject languages drop

moremore subjects than kids who are learning non-null subjects than kids who are learning non-null subject languages.subject languages.

BloomBloom: Long sentences are harder, drop what you : Long sentences are harder, drop what you can. The beginning of a sentence is more can. The beginning of a sentence is more susceptible.susceptible.

Wexler/HyamsWexler/Hyams: Kids drop more subjects with : Kids drop more subjects with nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with finite verbs, where “topic” isn’t yet grasped.finite verbs, where “topic” isn’t yet grasped.

L1A: Optional InfinitivesL1A: Optional Infinitives

In many languages, kids will allow In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite verbs in root clauses nonfinite verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to a little after sometimes, early on (up to a little after 2).2).

NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that there’s a strong correlation between there’s a strong correlation between lacklack of OI’s in 2-year-old speech and of OI’s in 2-year-old speech and being a null subject language.being a null subject language. True? Or are OI’s just extra-rare in null True? Or are OI’s just extra-rare in null

subject languages (correlation with more subject languages (correlation with more elaborate inflection?).elaborate inflection?).

L1A: Finite vs. nonfiniteL1A: Finite vs. nonfinite

During Optional Infinitive stage, kids During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OI’s with OI’s treat finite verbs like finite treat finite verbs like finite verbs and nonfinite verbs like verbs and nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbsnonfinite verbs..

German (Poeppel & Wexler): V2 for German (Poeppel & Wexler): V2 for finite verbs, final V for nonfinite verbs.finite verbs, final V for nonfinite verbs.

French (Pierce): Verb before French (Pierce): Verb before paspas for for finite verbs, verb after finite verbs, verb after paspas for for nonfinite verbs.nonfinite verbs.

Some stories about OIsSome stories about OIs Rizzi:Rizzi: until maturation of Root=CP, trees until maturation of Root=CP, trees

truncated sometimes below tense.truncated sometimes below tense. Wexler/Schütze: Wexler/Schütze: Syntax intact, but Syntax intact, but

something prohibits the same (subject) DP something prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing both TP (finite tense) and from licensing both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case).AgrP (Nom case).

Radford: Radford: Kids don’t use functional Kids don’t use functional categories at this point (yet, leaves the categories at this point (yet, leaves the “finite verbs act finite” data unexplained).“finite verbs act finite” data unexplained).

Legendre et al:Legendre et al: Kids minimize the number Kids minimize the number of functional projections, basically same of functional projections, basically same outcome as Schütze & Wexler.outcome as Schütze & Wexler.

L1A: Principles B and PL1A: Principles B and P

Even older kids seem to allow co-Even older kids seem to allow co-reference in apparent violation of reference in apparent violation of Principle B: Principle B: Mary saw herMary saw her..

Chien & Wexler, then Thornton & Chien & Wexler, then Thornton & Wexler, show that when quantifier Wexler, show that when quantifier binding is available (and thus binding is available (and thus requires requires coindexation), Principle B is respected.coindexation), Principle B is respected.

Principle Principle PP is slow in coming is slow in coming (matures?), which says coreference --> (matures?), which says coreference --> coindexation.coindexation.

L1A: A-chains, passivesL1A: A-chains, passives

Kids are also purportedly slow to master Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives and unaccusatives.passives and unaccusatives.

Borer & WexlerBorer & Wexler (1987): This is maturation (1987): This is maturation of the ability to represent “A-chains”—of the ability to represent “A-chains”—more specifically, the ability to move an more specifically, the ability to move an object-type thing into a subject-type object-type thing into a subject-type position (non-local assignment of position (non-local assignment of -roles).-roles).

Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble with the genitive of negation.trouble with the genitive of negation.

L1A: A-chains etc.L1A: A-chains etc.

Some possible reasons for skepticism Some possible reasons for skepticism on this:on this: Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994): French Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994): French

kids get auxiliary selection right with kids get auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics:reflexive clitics: Le chienLe chienjj s sii’est [ t’est [ tii mordu t mordu tjj ]. ].

VP-internal subjectsVP-internal subjects Korean negation misplacement seems to Korean negation misplacement seems to

differentiate unergative/transitive from differentiate unergative/transitive from unaccusatives. (not previously discussed)unaccusatives. (not previously discussed)

L1A: Negation outside of L1A: Negation outside of IPIP

Kids for a while seem to have Kids for a while seem to have trouble with negation outside the IP, trouble with negation outside the IP, and repair their utterances so that it and repair their utterances so that it remains inside (usually in an adult-remains inside (usually in an adult-ungrammatical way).ungrammatical way). What kind of bread do you don’t like?What kind of bread do you don’t like? Where he couldn’t eat the raisins?Where he couldn’t eat the raisins?

L1A: SyntaxL1A: Syntax In general, the errors kids are making seem In general, the errors kids are making seem

to be very systematic.to be very systematic. They seem to know many aspects of the They seem to know many aspects of the

grammatical system, allowing us to pinpoint grammatical system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look closely enough and ask the right (if we look closely enough and ask the right questions) what parts questions) what parts don’t don’t seem to be seem to be working.working. A-chains (or “dethematization of an external arg.”).A-chains (or “dethematization of an external arg.”). Using a [D] feature twice to check functional Using a [D] feature twice to check functional

features.features. Allowing negation in C.Allowing negation in C. Requiring coreference to imply coindexation.Requiring coreference to imply coindexation.

L2A: What can we say?L2A: What can we say?

Certain things are required to explain L1A.Certain things are required to explain L1A. Kids don’t get negative evidenceKids don’t get negative evidence

or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy, and moreover or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy, and moreover sometimes when we sometimes when we trytry to give them negative evidence, to give them negative evidence, they ignore it. they ignore it.

The kids must be able to learn a system that The kids must be able to learn a system that assign * to some sentences, based only on assign * to some sentences, based only on positive evidence.positive evidence.

Conclusion: Conclusion: Universal Grammar Universal Grammar constrains the constrains the kinds of languages there can be, those languages kinds of languages there can be, those languages cannot generate certain kinds of sentences cannot generate certain kinds of sentences (hence: *).(hence: *).

L2A: What can we say?L2A: What can we say?

L1A: Languages differ from one another.L1A: Languages differ from one another. SomethingSomething needs to be learned from the needs to be learned from the

environment.environment. Yet much of the grammatical system seems Yet much of the grammatical system seems

common across languages.common across languages. Languages can be thought of as varying not in the Languages can be thought of as varying not in the

system (the principles) but in the parameters.system (the principles) but in the parameters. The kids, who learn their native language so fast, The kids, who learn their native language so fast,

must have some help setting the parameters. A must have some help setting the parameters. A Language AcquisitionLanguage Acquisition DeviceDevice (LAD) designed to (LAD) designed to choose among the options made available by UG.choose among the options made available by UG.

L2A: What can we say?L2A: What can we say?

L2A is generally much harder, more L2A is generally much harder, more conscious, slower, less successful.conscious, slower, less successful.

What’s different about L2A? Did UG What’s different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did the LAD disappear?disappear? Did the LAD disappear?

QuestionQuestion: What is the state of the : What is the state of the L2’ers knowledge about the L2?L2’ers knowledge about the L2?

Does this conform to what UG would Does this conform to what UG would allow?allow?

L2A: UG-accessibilityL2A: UG-accessibility

In general, it seems that the evidence In general, it seems that the evidence points to the interlanguages being points to the interlanguages being allowable human languages. This allowable human languages. This could either be influence from UG could either be influence from UG (constraining possible languages) or (constraining possible languages) or because the IL is a variation on L1.because the IL is a variation on L1.

Can we tell? Look at parameter Can we tell? Look at parameter settings: Does IL represent a settings: Does IL represent a different option from L1?different option from L1?

L2A: TransferL2A: Transfer If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the

initial starting assumption?initial starting assumption? Is it some kind of general default setting for Is it some kind of general default setting for

all the parameters (likely to be a “subset” all the parameters (likely to be a “subset” grammar from which all other grammars grammar from which all other grammars can be learned via position evidence can be learned via position evidence alone)?alone)?

Is it just carrying over the parameter Is it just carrying over the parameter settings from L1?settings from L1?

Some combination of these?Some combination of these?

L2A: TricksL2A: Tricks

In order to look properly at parameters, we In order to look properly at parameters, we need to know what they need to know what they areare. And what a . And what a “default” setting might be. This turns out to “default” setting might be. This turns out to be hard.be hard.

Pro-drop parameter. Default: Drop Pro-drop parameter. Default: Drop subjects? Subset learnable? Correlated subjects? Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else?with anything else?

Binding Theory Governing Category? Binding Theory Governing Category? Default? Language-wide? Strictly Default? Language-wide? Strictly predictable from morphology?predictable from morphology?

L2A: Interlanguage = L2A: Interlanguage = L1+prescriptive rules?L1+prescriptive rules?

Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference)rules (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference)

Or does the IL actually show resetting of Or does the IL actually show resetting of parameters?parameters?

Resetting should entail: cluster of Resetting should entail: cluster of properties comes with new value (again properties comes with new value (again requires that we know what the requires that we know what the parameters, values, clusters parameters, values, clusters areare))

If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG-If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG-available option in the IL, that also available option in the IL, that also suggests parameter setting.suggests parameter setting.

Pro-UGPro-UG

MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via Russian anaphors.English via Russian anaphors.

Kanno (1996) and JSL learners Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how to drop case seeming to know how to drop case markers without instruction.markers without instruction.

UG?UG?

White (1991), ESL kids coming from White (1991), ESL kids coming from French don’t seem to learn that the French don’t seem to learn that the verb doesn’t raise (at least over verb doesn’t raise (at least over adverbs).adverbs).

Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be “faking” French—early seem to be “faking” French—early stage treating negation as part of the stage treating negation as part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition verb, start to allow SVAO in addition to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift).to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift).

L2A: Is there a L2A: Is there a difference between difference between

kids and adults?kids and adults? L2A is harder as you get older.L2A is harder as you get older. L1A is quite possibility bounded in time.L1A is quite possibility bounded in time. Evidence for CPs seem to point to different Evidence for CPs seem to point to different

CPs for different subsystems…CPs for different subsystems… CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain

correlate?correlate? Yet Yet some peoplesome people may manage to overcome may manage to overcome

this and become indistinguishable from a this and become indistinguishable from a native speaker. Some plasticity remains?native speaker. Some plasticity remains?

What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD?What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD?

Some things we know Some things we know about native languagesabout native languages

The differences between knowing one language and The differences between knowing one language and another are primarily knowing…another are primarily knowing… Different vocabularyDifferent vocabulary

Different rootsDifferent roots Different morphology and rules of morphological combinationDifferent morphology and rules of morphological combination

Different parameter settingsDifferent parameter settings (perhaps in the lexicon of the (perhaps in the lexicon of the language)language)

Does the language allow null subjects?Does the language allow null subjects? Does the verb move to T?Does the verb move to T? Does the language allow complex onsets in its syllables?Does the language allow complex onsets in its syllables?

Different cultural conventionsDifferent cultural conventions Standard way to refuse, an invitation, apologize, …Standard way to refuse, an invitation, apologize, … Idiomatic meanings for words and word groupsIdiomatic meanings for words and word groups Cultural literacy for metaphors and allusionsCultural literacy for metaphors and allusions Prescriptive rules Prescriptive rules

Modeling the humanModeling the humancapacity for languagecapacity for language

UG UG providesprovides the parameters the parameters and contains and contains the grammatical system that makes use of the grammatical system that makes use of them.them.

LAD LAD setssets the parameters the parameters based on the based on the PLD. Responsible for getting language to PLD. Responsible for getting language to kids.kids.

LAD

PLDUG

SubjacencyNPAH

L2AL2A Perhaps the LAD operates in L1A but not Perhaps the LAD operates in L1A but not

in adult L2A, that the language input in adult L2A, that the language input needs to find its way into the needs to find its way into the interlanguage some other way.interlanguage some other way.

LAD

intake

UG

SubjacencyNPAH

Critical periodCritical period Lenneberg (1967).Lenneberg (1967). Critical periods are Critical periods are

rampant in the natural world.rampant in the natural world. CP for developing binocular vision in macaque CP for developing binocular vision in macaque

monkeys, cats.monkeys, cats. CP for imprinting in birdsCP for imprinting in birds Delay in cataract surgery can fail to yield Delay in cataract surgery can fail to yield

sight.sight. And in language-related domains too…And in language-related domains too…

Genie, kept from language input until 13;7Genie, kept from language input until 13;7 Young kids can recover from CNS damage in Young kids can recover from CNS damage in

ways adults seem not able to.ways adults seem not able to.

Critical periodCritical period

If exists, best candidate for cause is brain If exists, best candidate for cause is brain development.development. Lateralization?Lateralization? Maybe, but probably finished Maybe, but probably finished

too early.too early. MyelinizationMyelinization (limits plasticity) (limits plasticity)?? Maybe, but Maybe, but

probably finished too late. But maybe.probably finished too late. But maybe. In the model of acquisition, what goes In the model of acquisition, what goes

away?away? LAD?LAD? Plasticity in possible language knowledge Plasticity in possible language knowledge

(locked in place)?(locked in place)?

Critical periodCritical period

Johnson and Newport.Johnson and Newport. Found negative correlation Found negative correlation between age of initial exposure to language and between age of initial exposure to language and eventual performance. Tested subjects’ judgments eventual performance. Tested subjects’ judgments concerning violations of concerning violations of SubjacencySubjacency (limits possible (limits possible whwh-questions, putative universal principle). Rapid -questions, putative universal principle). Rapid drop-off of performance after initial age around 14.drop-off of performance after initial age around 14.

White and Genesee, BirdsongWhite and Genesee, Birdsong cite small number of cite small number of late learners who late learners who do do seem to reach a level where seem to reach a level where they are indistinguishable from native speakers.they are indistinguishable from native speakers.

So, it seems like there is at least a sensitive period, So, it seems like there is at least a sensitive period, but certain people (who work hard, care a lot, have but certain people (who work hard, care a lot, have high verbal “aptitude”?) can overcome the obstacle.high verbal “aptitude”?) can overcome the obstacle.

L2A: Negative evidence L2A: Negative evidence useful?useful?

L1A doesn’t use negative evidence.L1A doesn’t use negative evidence. If there is parameter transfer into IL If there is parameter transfer into IL

from L1, logical subset relations from L1, logical subset relations might require negative evidence to might require negative evidence to reach correct parameter setting.reach correct parameter setting.

Providing people with negative Providing people with negative evidence seems to help—but only in evidence seems to help—but only in the short term (without prolonged the short term (without prolonged practicing), it may not yield any practicing), it may not yield any permanent “parameter resetting.”permanent “parameter resetting.”

L2A: Markedness?L2A: Markedness?

Are “unmarked” things easier/quicker Are “unmarked” things easier/quicker to learn than “marked” things? Does to learn than “marked” things? Does teaching the “marked” things give teaching the “marked” things give you the “unmarked” things for free?you the “unmarked” things for free?

What actually What actually are are the marked and the marked and unmarked things? (This may have unmarked things? (This may have more to do with non-acquisition more to do with non-acquisition oriented theoretical linguistics)oriented theoretical linguistics)

OI’s in adults? No, OI’s in adults? No, L2A≠L1AL2A≠L1A

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). —Prévost & White—Prévost & White

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

UG access and transferUG access and transfer

To what extent do second language To what extent do second language learners know what “languages are learners know what “languages are like”? (Do they still know what all like”? (Do they still know what all the possibilities are?)the possibilities are?)

To what extent do second language To what extent do second language learners assume that the language learners assume that the language they’re learning is like the language they’re learning is like the language they already know?they already know?

Input to intakeInput to intake For intake to work (in any kind of For intake to work (in any kind of

automatic way), automatic way), the the data data must be must be availableavailable. But the L1 can potentially . But the L1 can potentially filterfilter out useful information.out useful information.

Infants start with but lose the ability to Infants start with but lose the ability to distinguish non-native contrasts.distinguish non-native contrasts.

French “irregulars” French “irregulars” cédezcédez vs. vs. cèdecède.. Phonological features, distinctions, Phonological features, distinctions, ll//rr in in

Mandarin vs. Japanese; geminates in EMandarin vs. Japanese; geminates in EJ.J.

Markedness and what Markedness and what languages are likelanguages are like

Typological universals reduce the number Typological universals reduce the number of possible languages.of possible languages.

Marked implies unmarkedMarked implies unmarked having a dual implies having a pluralhaving a dual implies having a plural having purple implies having greenhaving purple implies having green having having whwh-inversion implies having -inversion implies having whwh-fronting-fronting having yes-no inversion implies having having yes-no inversion implies having whwh--

inversioninversion being able to form relatives on OPREP implies being able to form relatives on OPREP implies

being able to form relatives on IObeing able to form relatives on IO

Markedness and what Markedness and what languages are likelanguages are like

Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989).Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989). J/K/TJ/K/TE. All E. All whwh-fronted; some had -fronted; some had whwh-inversion (-inversion (whwh--

invinvwhwh-fronting). Some yn-inv, ~all had -fronting). Some yn-inv, ~all had whwh-inv. Some -inv. Some other (other (whwh-inv). (yn-inv-inv). (yn-invwhwh-inv).-inv).

IL seems to obey typological universals—it’s a IL seems to obey typological universals—it’s a language in the relevant sense.language in the relevant sense.

Markedness Differential HypothesisMarkedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman): (Eckman): Difficulty in learning area of L2 from L1 if they Difficulty in learning area of L2 from L1 if they differ and L2 version is more marked.differ and L2 version is more marked.

Some evidence that teaching marked structures Some evidence that teaching marked structures is hard, but gives you unmarked structures for is hard, but gives you unmarked structures for free.free.

Markedness and what Markedness and what languages are likelanguages are like

Sonority hierarchySonority hierarchy a > i > r > l > n > s > ta > i > r > l > n > s > t

Syllables as sonority waves; languages Syllables as sonority waves; languages differ on steepness requirements between differ on steepness requirements between margin and nucleus.margin and nucleus.

Most evidence that we have so far points Most evidence that we have so far points to a big role for transfer in phonological to a big role for transfer in phonological parameters and not a lot of parameter parameters and not a lot of parameter resetting.resetting.

Yet, the evidence in the phonology might Yet, the evidence in the phonology might be more readily available.be more readily available.

Language attritionLanguage attrition

L1 attrition—altering L1 attrition—altering L1L1 parameter parameter settings?settings?

Null subjects: Italian speakers Null subjects: Italian speakers immersed in English will sometime immersed in English will sometime produce/accept overt subjects where produce/accept overt subjects where monolinguals would not. Broadening monolinguals would not. Broadening the contexts in which they can use the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns (not forgetting how overt pronouns (not forgetting how to use null subjects).to use null subjects).

Conclusions?Conclusions? LAD probably atrophied (critical period): Meisel 1997.LAD probably atrophied (critical period): Meisel 1997. Universal constraints (also active in L1) constrain IL—Universal constraints (also active in L1) constrain IL—

would be true even if we were just talking about would be true even if we were just talking about “speaking L1 with L2 words” (Kanno 1996)“speaking L1 with L2 words” (Kanno 1996)

L2 learners (even kids) don’t seem to set the verb L2 learners (even kids) don’t seem to set the verb movement or null subject parameters for the target movement or null subject parameters for the target language (predicted clustering not observed) (White, language (predicted clustering not observed) (White, Trahey, Hawkins et al.).Trahey, Hawkins et al.).

Parameters of Parameters of binding theorybinding theory if correctly analyzed if correctly analyzed dodo seem to be being reset. One piece of positive evidence seem to be being reset. One piece of positive evidence we’ve got. Possibly also the Hulk results about we’ve got. Possibly also the Hulk results about Dutch/French.Dutch/French.

Bottom line:Bottom line:

Especially with respect to L2AEspecially with respect to L2A, there , there are a lot of things left to discover are a lot of things left to discover because because carefulcareful and and theoretically theoretically informedinformed experiments still need to be experiments still need to be done. done. Many of the experiments that are in the Many of the experiments that are in the

literature rely on misleading simplistic literature rely on misleading simplistic notions (a monolithic UG subsuming the notions (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single once-and-for-all CPH, a LAD, a single once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-at-a time view of acquisition, a one-stage-at-a time view of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb placement or subset relation for adverb placement or binding domain definitions)…binding domain definitions)…