The lexicon-syntax interface and the syntax-discourse interface:

1

• The lexicon-syntax interface and the
  syntax-discourse interface
• native-like and optional knowledge in advanced L2
  Spanish
• Cristóbal Lozano
• Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
• clozan2_at_yahoo.com
• The Romance Turn 2004

2
Background

• Emerging pattern in advanced L2 acquisition of
  syntactic properties vs. discursive props.

• converge with formal/syntactic props
• ? native-like knowledge.

• diverge with discursive props like topic and
  focus (syntax-discourse interface)
• ? divergent / optional knowledge.

3
Aim

• If emerging view is correct, will it be observed
  with the second property of pro-drop parameter
  subject inversion?
• Subject inversion is constrained
• Syntactically (Unaccusative Hypothesis) at
  lexicon-syntax interface
• Discursively (TP-internal presentational Focus
  Phrase) at syntax-discourse interface

4
SV/VS alternations

• Subtle learnability problem for learners of L2
  Spanish
• Do SV / VS alternate freely?
• (1) María gritó (SV) / Gritó María (VS)
• Maria shouted Shouted Maria
• (2) María llegó (SV) / Llegó María (VS)
• Maria arrived Arrived Maria
• Alternations constrained formally (Unaccusative
  Hypothesis) and discursively (presentational
  focus).

5
Syntax Unaccusative Hypothesis
Principle of UG UTAH Parameter pro in
Spec,TP
Greek like Spa. English strictly SV (no surface
syntactic effects)
6
Syntax-discourse presentational focus
Greek Eng pres focus in situ SV (pres. focus
subject checked in Spec,TP)

7
Summary of word order

Unfocused contexts

Focused contexts

What happened?

Who shouted/arrived?

Unergatives

SV

VS

María gritó

Gritó MaríaFoc

Maria
shouted

Shouted Maria

Unaccusatives

VS

VS

Llegó
María
Llegó
MaríaFoc


Arrived Maria

Arrived Maria


8
Previous L2 findings

• Syntax (Unacc. Hypothesis)
• English-speaking learners of Spanish are
  sensitive to the syntactic effects of the Unacc.
  Hypothesis from early stages of development SV
  with unergatives but VS with unaccusatives
• (De Miguel, 1993 Hertel, 2000, 2003 Hertel
  Pérez-Leroux, 1999).
• Discourse under-researched area
• Hertel (2003) presentationally focused subjects
  in final position are acquired late in L2 Spa.
  Same finding for L2 Italian (Belletti Leonini,
  2004).
• Ocampo (1990) and Camacho (1999) L2 Spa
  acquisition of distinct word orders to mark focus
  is acquired late or perhaps never acquired in
  native-like fashion.

9
Method

• Instrument
• Contextualised acceptability judgement test
  (Hertel, 2000)

Translation
10
Results unfocused contexts(Unaccusative
Hypothesis)

• Qué pasó? What happened?
• Unergatives (SV) Unaccusatives (VS)

sig
sig
sig
sig
sig
sig
Convergence with natives (native-like knowledge)
11
Results focused contexts(Presentational focus
at syntax-discourse interface)

• Quién gritó / llegó? Who shouted / arrived?
• Unergatives (VS) Unaccusatives (VS)

sig
sig
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. (just)
Divergence with natives (subtype optionality)
12
Conclusion

• ? Sorace (2000c 2004), Tsimpli et al (in press),
  Tsimpli (2001)
• -interpretable vs. interpretable features

Highly vulnerable to attrition
Less vulnerable to attrition
Convergent (native-like)
Divergent (e.g., optionality)
Uninterpretable D and phi features on T
licensing postverbal subjects at syntax
Interpretable Focus feature at syntax-discourse
syntax
discourse
13

• Thank you !

14
(No Transcript)
15
Native non-native Native non-native