Week 13. L2 morphology v. functional projections

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 13. L2 morphology v. functional projections

2
Morphology

• In L1A, we observe that kids dont always provide
  all of the morphology that adults do.
• Traditionally, it was assumed that kids are
  learning the morphology and the syntax and that
  at some point they got it (say, when they provide
  correct morphology 90 of the time when it was
  required).

3
Morphology

• A major recent development in the study of how
  kids come to know the (by now, known to be
  fabulously complicated, but yet relatively
  language-independent) system of syntax was in the
  observation that morphological errors are by no
  means random.
• In particular, in a large number of languages,
  what seems to happen is that kids produce
  nonfinite forms of the verbbut along with that
  comes the syntax associated with non-finiteness.

4
German and L1A
CP
C?

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

DP
IP
CI
ate
John
I?


VP
V?

DP
lunch
5
Functional categories

• So, even though kids will sometimes use nonfinite
  verbs, they know the difference between finite
  and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar
  treats each kind. They are using T correctly.
  They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite)
  one.
• Now, adult L2ers also drop a lot of morphology,
  will produce nonfinite forms
• This raises the question (in the general ballpark
  of how much is L2A like L1A?) as to whether
  second language learners show this effect as well.

6
Functional categories

• Rephrasing a bit, what were talking about is
  essentially the structural complexity of the
  learners (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point).
• It has been pretty well established by
  theoretical linguistics that adult native
  languages are quite complex, containing
  functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and
  there is a lot of support for this idea that most
  if not all parametric differences stem from
  properties of the abstract functional morphemes
  (often reflected in surface morphology).

7
Functional categories

• Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules of
  adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway)
  serves as evidence for this complex functional
  structure, since the verb moves into a functional
  head (T, for example).
• The evidence we just reviewed suggests very
  strongly that kids learning German and French
  produce sentences which comply with the rules of
  adult syntax (that make reference to this complex
  functional structure). Kids seem to know about
  the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain
  thereto.

8
Functional categories

• The question were about to look at is whether
  adult second language learners also have this
  same complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do
  L2ers know about TP in other words?
• Note that if L2ers can usually produce sentences
  which are grammatical in the TL but yet dont
  follow the rules which are associated with that
  structure (i.e. that only finite verbs move to
  T), we do not have evidence that their mental
  representation of these sentences includes the
  higher functional phrases like TP.

9
Prévost and White (1999, 2000)

• Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this
  very question, and heres what they found.
• Like kids do during L1A, second language learners
  will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide,
  inflection (tense, subject agreement) on the
  verb.
• However, it is different from L1A in that lack of
  finite inflection on the verb does not seem to
  correlate with being treated syntactically as an
  infinitive.

10
Prévost and White

• Prévost and White try to differentiate two
  possibilities of what their data might show,
  given that second language learners sometimes use
  inflected verbs and sometimes dont.
• Impairment Hypothesis. The learners dont really
  (consistently) understand the inflection or how
  to use it. Their knowledge of inflection is
  impaired. Their trees dont contain the
  functional XPs.
• Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis. The
  learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in
  their infinitive form (the verbs act finite, the
  functional XPs are there, but the learner
  couldnt find the right inflected form in his/her
  lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite
  form). The nonfinite form is essentially a
  default.

11
Prévost and White

• Possibility 1 (impairment) suggests basically no
  correlation between verb movement and inflection.
• Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite verb by
  using its nonfinite form) predicts that
• When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will
  definitely be (and act) finiteit will move.
• When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might
  act finite or nonfinite.

12
Prévost and White

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

13
Prévost and White found

• Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in
  non-finite contexts.
• When verbs are marked with inflection, they
  systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before
  negation (i.e., they move).
• Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts
  (used finitely, moved).

Oblig. Fin Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin Oblig. Nonfin
Fin -Fin -Fin Fin
A(F) 767 243 278 17
Z(F) 755 224 156 2
A(G) 389 45 76 7
Z(G) 434 85 98 6
14
Prévost and White

• PWs data supports the hypotheses that
• (These) second language learners know the
  difference between finite and nonfinite verbs.
• They know that finite verbs move, and that
  nonfinite verbs do not move.
• The only real errors they make are essentially
  lexical retrieval errors (errors of
  pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are
  abstractly finite in their infinitive form.
• One question Why the infinitive? Is it really an
  unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what
  the citation form is? Is it due to the
  language-particular morphology.

15
L2A and L1A

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

16
L2A and L1

• We dont know really to what extent UG played a
  role, based only on thisafter all, we know that
  the L1 had the full structural complexity of a
  natural language, including the distinction
  (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite,
  and including (perhaps abstract) subject
  agreement, etc. Theres no reason that knowledge
  of the distinction between finite and nonfinite
  couldnt simply carry over (transfer) to the IL
  during L2A.

17
Morphology ? syntax

• This suggests that morphology is rather distinct
  from syntax. It is possible to have the syntax
  right and the morphology wrong. And to some
  extent, morphology is not provided by UG, must be
  learned, and moreover must be retrieved.
• The view of Distributed Morphology under which
  morphology is a separate system given the task of
  pronouncing a syntactic structure (and which
  allows for the sort of defaults we seem to see)
  seems well suited to describe this.

18
Morphology ? syntax

• Various other studies describe a similar
  dissociation obligatory subjects, subject case,
  and verb position are all governed by syntactic
  features/parameters attributed to functional
  projections. And while L2ers seem to get these
  right, they are inconsistent with the morphology.
  (See White ch. 6 Lardière, White, Schwartz,
  Prévost, )

19
Schwartz (2002)

• Last year at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz presented
  data of this sort looking at the gender agreement
  and definiteness properties of Dutch DPs, with
  the aim being to determine whether child L2
  acquisition was more like child L1 acquisition or
  more like adult L2 acquisition.
• What she found was that in terms of
  overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of
  uninflected adjectives), adult L2ers did it, but
  neither child L1ers nor child L2er did. But in
  terms of word order, both kinds of L2er went
  through a word order stage not attested in child
  L1ers development.

20
Schwartz (2002)

• Schwartz concluded that
• child L2 is like child L1 wrt morphology
• child L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntax
• Again, a dissociation between morphology and
  syntax.
• Why? Morphology is surface-evident and frequent,
  why is there such difficulty?

21
thoughts re Schwartz (2002)

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

22
thoughts re Schwartz (2002)

• Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting point
  with respect to processing there are processing
  results that indicate that adult L2ers need
  longer to process incoming data. While Im not
  sure exactly what studies he had in mind, taking
  that as given, perhaps the problem with
  morphology is that it just comes too fast. In
  the same kind of way that phonological filters
  might keep morphological marking out of the
  input data, processing constraints might also
  have this effect.

23
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?

24
Language attrition

• It is a very common phenomenon that, having
  learned an L2 and having become quite proficient,
  one will still forget how to use it after a
  period of non-use.
• While very common, its not very surprisingits
  like calculus. If L2 is a skill like calculus,
  wed expect this.

25
L1 attrition

• Much more surprising is the fact that sometimes
  under the influence of a dominant L2, skill in
  the L1 seems to go.
• Consider the UG/parameter model a kids LAD
  faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters
  in his/her head to match those exhibited by the
  linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast,
  uniformly successful biologically driven, not
  learning in the normal sense of learning a skill.
• So how could it suffer attrition? What are you
  left with?

26
UG in L2A

• Weve looked at the questions concerning whether
  when learning a second language, one can adapt
  the parameter settings in the new knowledge to
  the target settings (where they differ from the
  L1 settings), but this is even more dramaticit
  would seem to actually be altering the L1
  settings.
• It behooves us to look carefullier at this do
  attrited speakers seem to have changed parameter
  settings?

27
Italian?English

• Italian is a null subject language that allows
  the subject to be dropped in most cases where in
  English wed use a pronoun
• (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it
  conveys something pragmatic contrastive focus or
  change in topic)
• English is a non-null-subject language that
  does not allow the subject to be dropped out,
  pronouns are required (even sometimes
  meaningless like it or there). Not required
  that a pronoun signal a change in topic.

28
Italian, null subjects

• Q Perchè Maria è uscite?Why did M leave?
• A1 Lei ha deciso di fare una passeggiata.
• A2 Ha deciso di fare une passenggiata.She
  decided to take a walk.
• Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2, but
  English-immersed native Italian speaker will
  optionally produce (and accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)

29
Reverse errors unattested

• Q Perchè Maria è uscite?Why did Maria leave?
• A Perchè Ø è venuto a prederla.Because
  (Gianni) came to pick her up.
• That is, they dont forget how to use null
  subjects so much as they broaden the contexts in
  which they can use overt pronouns.

30
Postverbal subjects

• Q Chi ha starnutito? Who sneezed?
• A1 Gianni ha starnutito.
• A2 Ha starnutito Gianni.
• Native speakers would say A2 due to the narrow
  focus attrited speakers will produce/allow A1 as
  well.

31
L1 attrition

• It seems that the acceptability of overt pronouns
  (in the L1 attriters) broadens compared to
  their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns
  becomes more restricted.
• Pronouns in a null subject language are
  markedthey are restricted to particular
  discourse contexts (topic shift, according to
  Sorace).
• What seems to happen is that the pronouns revert
  to the unmarked case (topic shift like in
  English).

32
L1 attrition

• Same goes for postverbal subjectsit is a marked
  option for languages, and the L1 seems to be
  retreating to the unmarked.
• Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a question
  of grammaticality but a question of felicity.

33
L1 attrition

• Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more
  susceptible to this kind of attrition then
  others.
• Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition
  of this sort seem to be the ones involved with
  discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental
  grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is
  still a null-subject language, for examplenull
  subjects are still possible and used only in
  places where null subjects should be allowed).

34
L1 attrition

• So, were left with a not-entirely-inconsistent
  view of the world.
• Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe, but
  the discourse-pragmatic constraints seem to be
  somehow susceptible to high exposure to
  conflicting constraints in other languages.

35
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?

36
Language mixing(Spanish-English)

• No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a
  senior.No, I did jump on the trampoline when I
  was a senior.
• La consulta era eight dollars.The office visit
  was eight dollars.
• Well, I keep starting some. Como por un mes todos
  los días escribo y ya dejo.Well, I keep
  starting some. For about a month I write
  everything and then I stop.

37
But it isnt random

• El viejo man The old man
• The old hombre El hombre viejo
• The viejo hombre
• She sees lo.
• Certain mixes are not considered to be possible
  by fluent bilinguals.
• How can we characterize what mixes are possible
  vs. impossible?

38
Prior efforts

• Several proposals have been offered to account
  for what are good mixes and what arent, but it
  appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt
  by Poplack (1980, 1981)
• The equivalence constraint. Codes will tend to be
  switched at points where the surface structure of
  the languages map onto each other.
• The free morpheme constraint. A switch may occur
  at any point in the discourse at which it is
  possible to make a surface constituent cut and
  still retain a free morpheme.

39
Poplack

• Looking at the constraints on code-switching of
  this sorts can help us understand the nature of
  (at least fluent) bilingual language
  representation.
• One odd thing about Poplacks constraints is that
  it implies that part of UG is dedicated to
  mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and
  Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on
  mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for
  bilinguals?

40
Problems for Poplack

• Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints
  Accounts for estoy eatiendo, but leaves
  unexplained
• The students habian visto la pelicula italien.
• The student had visto la pelicua italien.
• Los estudiantes habian seen the Italian movie.
• Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n
  PocajontasRef-treat-vsf about this
  3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P.It deals with the one
  who rescues P.

41
Problems for Poplack?

• El no wants to go
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (Im not
  working)
• Amo estoy trabajandonot be.3s work-dur Im not
  working

42
Problems for Poplack

• Tú tikoas tlakemetl 2sg
  2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(You will buy
  clothes)
• El kikoas tlakmetlhe
  3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfHe will buy
  clothes

43
MacSwan 1999

• Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and
  promising account, building on recent
  developments in syntactic theory.
• One of the basic premises is that language
  parameters are properties of lexical items (not
  of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement
  is due to a property of the tense morpheme in
  French, not shared by the tense morpheme in
  English.

44
MacSwan 1999

• The broad (minimalist) approach to grammar
  takes language to consist of two primary
  components.
• Computational system (builds trees), language
  invariant.
• Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements
  of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.

45
MacSwan 1999

• MacSwans proposal is that there are no
  constraints on code mixing over and above
  constraints found on monolingual sentences.
• (His only constraint which obliquely refers to
  code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly
  that within a word, the language must be
  coherent.)
• We can determine what are possible mixes by
  looking at the properties of the (functional
  elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed
  languages.

46
MacSwan 1999

• The model of code mixing is then just like
  monolingual speechthe only difference being that
  the words and functional elements are not always
  drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single
  language.
• Where requirements conflict between languages is
  where mixing will be prohibited.

47
Clitics, bound morphemes

• Some lexical items in some languages are clitics,
  they depend (usually phonologically) on
  neighboring words. Similar to the concept of
  bound morpheme.
• Johns book.
• I shouldnt go.
• Clitics essentially fuse with their host.

48
Clitics, bound morphemes

• Clitics generally cannot be stressed.
• JohnS book
• I couldNT go.
• Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with
  their host.
• Shouldnt I go?
• Should I not go?
• Should I nt go?

49
Spanish no

• It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a
  clitic (despite spelling conventions).
• Qué no dijo Juan? What didnt J say?
• Qué sólo leyó Juan? (What did J only read?)
• Qué meramente leyó Juan?(What did J merely
  read?)
• Juan no ha no hecho la tarea.(J hasnt not
  done the task.)

50
Nahuatl amo

• In Nahuatl, amo not does not appear to be a
  clitic.
• Amo nio amo niktati nowelti.Not 1s-go not
  1s-3Os-see my-sisterIm not going to not see my
  sister.

51
Spanish-Nahuatl mixing

• No nitekititoc not 1s-work-dur (Im not
  working)
• Amo estoy trabajandonot be.3s work-dur Im not
  working
• Now, we can begin to make sense of the difference
  in possible mixes at the point of negation
  between Spanish and Nahuatl.

52
MacSwan 1999

• MacSwan proposes essentially that it is not
  possible to code-mix within a (word-like)
  phonological unit. Essentially a restriction on
  what are pronouncable trees.
• Idea phonology operates as a set of ordered
  rules which are ordered differently in different
  languagesyou cant run both sets of rules at
  once, hence the result if you tried would be
  unpronounceable.
• Since Spanish no fuses with the following verb,
  it cant be followed by a Nahuatl verb.
• Since Nahuatl amo does not fuse with the
  following verb, it is free to be followed by a
  Spanish verb.

53
English-Spanish

• This also explains Spanish-English (well,
  Spanish-anything)
• El no wants to go
• What about English-Spanish?
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• He doesnt wants to go.

54
Agreement

• In languages that code agreement between subject
  and verb, it also appears that mixing is only
  possible where the agreement relationship is not
  disrupted.
• He doesnt quiere ir.
• English negation agreement appears on do.
• Spanish negation agreement appears on the verb.
• You cant have extra agreement one subject, one
  agreement. They need to match.

55
Agreement

• Yo nikoas tlakemetl I 1s-3Os-buy-fut
  garment-pl-nsf(I will buy clothes)
• Tú tikoas tlakemetl you 2s-3Os-buy-fut
  garment-pl-nsf(You will buy clothes)
• Él/Ella kikoas tlakemetlHe/She
  3s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsfHe/She will buy
  clothes

56
Agreement

• Ni-k-koa-s I will buy
• Ti-k-koa-s You will buy
• Ø-k(i)-koa-s He/she wlll buy
• Also relevant Spanish marks and agrees with
  gender but Nahuatl does not distinguish masculine
  from feminine.
• Spanish pronouns have gender specification. The
  Nahuatl verb does not. They can only be
  compatible (match) if there is no Nahuatl
  agreement morpheme.

57
Spanish-Catalan-Greek

• Spanish and Catalan both have two genders,
  masculine and feminine.
• Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine,
  neuter.
• Predicts Mixing subjects and verbs between the
  three languages is only possible between the
  gender-compatible languages.

58
Spanish-Catalan-Greek

• Yo vull mengar el dinar (S-C)
• Jo queiro comer la cena (C-S)
• Ego vull mengar el dinar (G-C)
• Ego queiro comer la cena (G-S)

59
Mixing and L2A?

• Code mixing as discussed so far is generally a
  property of the speech of fluent bilinguals
  (often native bilinguals) and reflects properties
  of universal language knowledge.
• We can now return to our old question and ask
  Does the knowledge of second language learners
  also have the restrictions on code mixing? To the
  extent that this is part of UG, is this aspect
  of UG active for L2ers? For the futureIm not
  aware of studies on L2A.

60
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?

61
Some major views on L1A/syntax

• Radford/Guilfoyle/Noonan kids lack functional
  elements initially, have only lexical elements.
• Wexler kids have access to all the same
  grammatical elements that adults do.
• Rizzi kids have truncated trees
• Vainikka kids grow trees

62
L1A Case errors

• Kids will sometimes make case errors with the
  subject (until around 2).
• Me got bean.
• In English, accusative (me) is the default.
• Very often taken to indicate a subject not in
  SpecIP (a.k.a. SpecAgrSP). No IP? (Radford)
  Sometimes IP and above (Rizzi, Vainikka)? No
  AgrSP? (Wexler)

63
L1A Null subjects

• Kids will also often drop out subjects, even in
  languages where null subjects are not allowed.
• Hyams (1986) Mis-set parameter theyre speaking
  Italian initially.
• Kids who are learning null subject languages drop
  more subjects than kids who are learning non-null
  subject languages.
• Bloom Long sentences are harder, drop what you
  can. The beginning of a sentence is more
  susceptible.
• Wexler/Hyams Kids drop more subjects with
  nonfinite verbs. PRO. Sometimes topic drop with
  finite verbs, where topic isnt yet grasped.

64
L1A Optional Infinitives

• In many languages, kids will allow nonfinite
  verbs in root clauses sometimes, early on (up to
  a little after 2).
• NS/OI? Wexler (1998) suggests that theres a
  strong correlation between lack of OIs in
  2-year-old speech and being a null subject
  language.
• True? Or are OIs just extra-rare in null subject
  languages (correlation with more elaborate
  inflection?).

65
L1A Finite vs. nonfinite

• During Optional Infinitive stage, kids with OIs
  treat finite verbs like finite verbs and
  nonfinite verbs like nonfinite verbs.
• German (Poeppel Wexler) V2 for finite verbs,
  final V for nonfinite verbs.
• French (Pierce) Verb before pas for finite
  verbs, verb after pas for nonfinite verbs.

66
Some stories about OIs

• Rizzi until maturation of RootCP, trees
  truncated sometimes below tense.
• Wexler/Schütze Syntax intact, but something
  prohibits the same (subject) DP from licensing
  both TP (finite tense) and AgrP (Nom case).
• Radford Kids dont use functional categories at
  this point (yet, leaves the finite verbs act
  finite data unexplained).
• Legendre et al Kids minimize the number of
  functional projections, basically same outcome as
  Schütze Wexler.

67
L1A Principles B and P

• Even older kids seem to allow co-reference in
  apparent violation of Principle B Mary saw her.
• Chien Wexler, then Thornton Wexler, show that
  when quantifier binding is available (and thus
  requires coindexation), Principle B is respected.
• Principle P is slow in coming (matures?), which
  says coreference --gt coindexation.

68
L1A A-chains, passives

• Kids are also purportedly slow to master passives
  and unaccusatives.
• Borer Wexler (1987) This is maturation of the
  ability to represent A-chainsmore
  specifically, the ability to move an object-type
  thing into a subject-type position (non-local
  assignment of q-roles).
• Babyonyshev et al. (1998) show kids have trouble
  with the genitive of negation.

69
L1A A-chains etc.

• Some possible reasons for skepticism on this
• Snyder, Hyams, Crisma (1994) French kids get
  auxiliary selection right with reflexive clitics
• Le chienj siest ti mordu tj .
• VP-internal subjects
• Korean negation misplacement seems to
  differentiate unergative/transitive from
  unaccusatives. (not previously discussed)

70
L1A Negation outside of IP

• Kids for a while seem to have trouble with
  negation outside the IP, and repair their
  utterances so that it remains inside (usually in
  an adult-ungrammatical way).
• What kind of bread do you dont like?
• Where he couldnt eat the raisins?

71
L1A Syntax

• In general, the errors kids are making seem to be
  very systematic.
• They seem to know many aspects of the grammatical
  system, allowing us to pinpoint (if we look
  closely enough and ask the right questions) what
  parts dont seem to be working.
• A-chains (or dethematization of an external
  arg.).
• Using a D feature twice to check functional
  features.
• Allowing negation in C.
• Requiring coreference to imply coindexation.

72
L2A What can we say?

• Certain things are required to explain L1A.
• Kids dont get negative evidence
• or if they do, it is inconsistent, it is noisy,
  and moreover sometimes when we try to give them
  negative evidence, they ignore it.
• The kids must be able to learn a system that
  assign to some sentences, based only on
  positive evidence.
• Conclusion Universal Grammar constrains the
  kinds of languages there can be, those languages
  cannot generate certain kinds of sentences
  (hence ).

73
L2A What can we say?

• L1A Languages differ from one another.
• Something needs to be learned from the
  environment.
• Yet much of the grammatical system seems common
  across languages.
• Languages can be thought of as varying not in the
  system (the principles) but in the parameters.
• The kids, who learn their native language so
  fast, must have some help setting the parameters.
  A Language Acquisition Device (LAD) designed to
  choose among the options made available by UG.

74
L2A What can we say?

• L2A is generally much harder, more conscious,
  slower, less successful.
• Whats different about L2A? Did UG disappear? Did
  the LAD disappear?
• Question What is the state of the L2ers
  knowledge about the L2?
• Does this conform to what UG would allow?

75
L2A UG-accessibility

• In general, it seems that the evidence points to
  the interlanguages being allowable human
  languages. This could either be influence from UG
  (constraining possible languages) or because the
  IL is a variation on L1.
• Can we tell? Look at parameter settings Does IL
  represent a different option from L1?

76
L2A Transfer

• If the IL is UG-constrained, what is the initial
  starting assumption?
• Is it some kind of general default setting for
  all the parameters (likely to be a subset
  grammar from which all other grammars can be
  learned via position evidence alone)?
• Is it just carrying over the parameter settings
  from L1?
• Some combination of these?

77
L2A Tricks

• In order to look properly at parameters, we need
  to know what they are. And what a default
  setting might be. This turns out to be hard.
• Pro-drop parameter. Default Drop subjects?
  Subset learnable? Correlated with anything else?
• Binding Theory Governing Category? Default?
  Language-wide? Strictly predictable from
  morphology?

78
L2A Interlanguage L1prescriptive rules?

• Is the IL just L1 plus some prescriptive rules
  (LLK)? (Fundamental Difference)
• Or does the IL actually show resetting of
  parameters?
• Resetting should entail cluster of properties
  comes with new value (again requires that we know
  what the parameters, values, clusters are)
• If we can find a non-L1, non-L2, but UG-available
  option in the IL, that also suggests parameter
  setting.

79
Pro-UG

• MacLaughlin (1998) and Japanese to English via
  Russian anaphors.
• Kanno (1996) and JSL learners seeming to know how
  to drop case markers without instruction.

80
UG?

• White (1991), ESL kids coming from French dont
  seem to learn that the verb doesnt raise (at
  least over adverbs).
• Hawkins et al. (1993), FSL people seem to be
  faking Frenchearly stage treating negation as
  part of the verb, start to allow SVAO in addition
  to SAVO (recruiting HNP shift).

81
L2A Is there a difference between kids and
adults?

• L2A is harder as you get older.
• L1A is quite possibility bounded in time.
• Evidence for CPs seem to point to different CPs
  for different subsystems
• CPs exist in vision, maybe we can find a brain
  correlate?
• Yet some people may manage to overcome this and
  become indistinguishable from a native speaker.
  Some plasticity remains?
• What disappears/deteriorates? UG? LAD?

82
Some things we know about native languages

• The differences between knowing one language and
  another are primarily knowing
• Different vocabulary
• Different roots
• Different morphology and rules of morphological
  combination
• Different parameter settings (perhaps in the
  lexicon of the language)
• Does the language allow null subjects?
• Does the verb move to T?
• Does the language allow complex onsets in its
  syllables?
• Different cultural conventions
• Standard way to refuse, an invitation, apologize,
  
• Idiomatic meanings for words and word groups
• Cultural literacy for metaphors and allusions
• Prescriptive rules

83
Modeling the humancapacity for language

• UG provides the parameters and contains the
  grammatical system that makes use of them.
• LAD sets the parameters based on the PLD.
  Responsible for getting language to kids.

LAD
UG
PLD
Subjacency
NPAH
84
L2A

• Perhaps the LAD operates in L1A but not in adult
  L2A, that the language input needs to find its
  way into the interlanguage some other way.

intake
LAD
UG
Subjacency
NPAH
85
Critical period

• Lenneberg (1967). Critical periods are rampant in
  the natural world.
• CP for developing binocular vision in macaque
  monkeys, cats.
• CP for imprinting in birds
• Delay in cataract surgery can fail to yield
  sight.
• And in language-related domains too
• Genie, kept from language input until 137
• Young kids can recover from CNS damage in ways
  adults seem not able to.

86
Critical period

• If exists, best candidate for cause is brain
  development.
• Lateralization? Maybe, but probably finished too
  early.
• Myelinization (limits plasticity)? Maybe, but
  probably finished too late. But maybe.
• In the model of acquisition, what goes away?
• LAD?
• Plasticity in possible language knowledge (locked
  in place)?

87
Critical period

• Johnson and Newport. Found negative correlation
  between age of initial exposure to language and
  eventual performance. Tested subjects judgments
  concerning violations of Subjacency (limits
  possible wh-questions, putative universal
  principle). Rapid drop-off of performance after
  initial age around 14.
• White and Genesee, Birdsong cite small number of
  late learners who do seem to reach a level where
  they are indistinguishable from native speakers.
• So, it seems like there is at least a sensitive
  period, but certain people (who work hard, care a
  lot, have high verbal aptitude?) can overcome
  the obstacle.

88
L2A Negative evidence useful?

• L1A doesnt use negative evidence.
• If there is parameter transfer into IL from L1,
  logical subset relations might require negative
  evidence to reach correct parameter setting.
• Providing people with negative evidence seems to
  helpbut only in the short term (without
  prolonged practicing), it may not yield any
  permanent parameter resetting.

89
L2A Markedness?

• Are unmarked things easier/quicker to learn
  than marked things? Does teaching the marked
  things give you the unmarked things for free?
• What actually are the marked and unmarked things?
  (This may have more to do with non-acquisition
  oriented theoretical linguistics)

90
OIs in adults? No, L2A?L1A

• Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in
  non-finite contexts.
• When verbs are marked with inflection, they
  systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before
  negation (i.e., they move).
• Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts
  (used finitely, moved). Prévost White

Oblig. Fin Oblig. Fin Oblig. Nonfin Oblig. Nonfin
Fin -Fin -Fin Fin
A(F) 767 243 278 17
Z(F) 755 224 156 2
A(G) 389 45 76 7
Z(G) 434 85 98 6
91
UG access and transfer

• To what extent do second language learners know
  what languages are like? (Do they still know
  what all the possibilities are?)
• To what extent do second language learners assume
  that the language theyre learning is like the
  language they already know?

92
Input to intake

• For intake to work (in any kind of automatic
  way), the data must be available. But the L1 can
  potentially filter out useful information.
• Infants start with but lose the ability to
  distinguish non-native contrasts.
• French irregulars cédez vs. cède.
• Phonological features, distinctions, l/r in
  Mandarin vs. Japanese geminates in E?J.

93
Markedness and what languages are like

• Typological universals reduce the number of
  possible languages.
• Marked implies unmarked
• having a dual implies having a plural
• having purple implies having green
• having wh-inversion implies having wh-fronting
• having yes-no inversion implies having
  wh-inversion
• being able to form relatives on OPREP implies
  being able to form relatives on IO

94
Markedness and what languages are like

• Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989).
• J/K/T?E. All wh-fronted some had wh-inversion
  (wh-inv?wh-fronting). Some yn-inv, all had
  wh-inv. Some other (wh-inv). (yn-inv?wh-inv).
• IL seems to obey typological universalsits a
  language in the relevant sense.
• Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman)
  Difficulty in learning area of L2 from L1 if they
  differ and L2 version is more marked.
• Some evidence that teaching marked structures is
  hard, but gives you unmarked structures for free.

95
Markedness and what languages are like

• Sonority hierarchy
• a gt i gt r gt l gt n gt s gt t
• Syllables as sonority waves languages differ on
  steepness requirements between margin and
  nucleus.
• Most evidence that we have so far points to a big
  role for transfer in phonological parameters and
  not a lot of parameter resetting.
• Yet, the evidence in the phonology might be more
  readily available.

96
Language attrition

• L1 attritionaltering L1 parameter settings?
• Null subjects Italian speakers immersed in
  English will sometime produce/accept overt
  subjects where monolinguals would not. Broadening
  the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns
  (not forgetting how to use null subjects).

97
Conclusions?

• LAD probably atrophied (critical period) Meisel
  1997.
• Universal constraints (also active in L1)
  constrain ILwould be true even if we were just
  talking about speaking L1 with L2 words (Kanno
  1996)
• L2 learners (even kids) dont seem to set the
  verb movement or null subject parameters for the
  target language (predicted clustering not
  observed) (White, Trahey, Hawkins et al.).
• Parameters of binding theory if correctly
  analyzed do seem to be being reset. One piece of
  positive evidence weve got. Possibly also the
  Hulk results about Dutch/French.

98
Bottom line

• Especially with respect to L2A, there are a lot
  of things left to discover because careful and
  theoretically informed experiments still need to
  be done.
• Many of the experiments that are in the
  literature rely on misleading simplistic notions
  (a monolithic UG subsuming the LAD, a single
  once-and-for-all CPH, a one-stage-at-a time view
  of acquisition, a subset relation for adverb
  placement or binding domain definitions)

99
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?