Interlanguage Syntax

1
Interlanguage Syntax

• Based on Second Language Syntax by Roger Hawkins
  
• Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar
  by White
• Presenter Shu-ing Shyu (???)
• Acknowledgements ???,???,???,???,???

2
Introduction

• How people acquire the syntax of L2s
• Two topics
• developmental problem-- Explain how knowledge of
  syntax develops over time
• logical problem of SLA-- Explain what makes it
  possible for L2 speakers to build mental grammars
  in the first place, with impoverished input

3
Introduction

• --Universal Grammar
• --Chomsky (1995) minimalist program to
  characterize the mechanisms made available by the
  brain for building mental grammars for specific
  languages
• --principles and parameters

4
Aim of the UG based second language acquisition

• Learners build subconscious mental grammars
  progressively (the developmental problem), and
  that they deploy the mechanisms of an underlying
  UG to do so (the logical problem).

5
What Is a Grammar?

• Grammar a set of instructions for generating all
  the grammatical sentences of a particular L.
• Generative Grammar a grammar which is able to
  generate all and only the grammatical sentences
  of a L.
• Mental Grammar Native speakers subconscious and
  internalized grammar

6
Innate Grammar-Building Evidence

• Input-determined view output from what is
  exposed, created by analogy, ungrammatical Ss due
  to not encountered
• Problem
• 5a. What did she discover who had written?
• (wh-island)
• b. Who did she discover what had written?
• Super raising
• c. Who did she discover had written what?
• ? Syntactic knowledge is underdetermined by the
  input.

7
1.4 Innate Grammar-Building Evidence

• Problem of Input-determined view
• Internalized grammatical knowledge
• e.g. theta role relations between transitive Vs
  and ditransitive Vs --
• Ditransitive Vs are monosyllabic or stress on the
  first V
• Possession relation between indirect O and direct
  O (send, give, serve, vs. explain, drove)
• She offered me a job. /She explained me the
  problem.
• Underdetermination by the input ? the principles
  and parameters of UG are biologically determined.

8
Innate Grammar biologically determined

• --Uniformity of success (L1)
• --Acquisition is rapid.
• --Acquisition is effortless.
• -- Correction feedback is largely irrelevant to
  acquisition.

9
Universal Grammar in L1 Acquisition

• UG is proposed as part of an innate biologically
  endowed language faculty (Chomsky 1965, 1981
  Pinker, 1984, 1994).
• S0 childs initial state// PLD primary
  linguistic data
• Ss mother tongue
• The role of input
• The role of evidence (feedback)
• The role of time critical period

10

• L1 Linguistic competence of native speakers of a
  language can be accounted for an abstract and
  unconscious linguistic system.
• Native-speaker grammars are constrained by built
  in universal linguistic principles, known as
  Universal Grammar (UG).

11
Studying L2 Syntax

• Assumption the same innate mechanisms underlying
  L2 grammar-building (L1 L2)
• Non-native speaker grammars refers to
  interlanguage grammars.
• L2 learner language is systematic errors
  produced by learners do not consist of random
  mistakes but, rather, suggest rule-governed
  behavior ( Adjemian 1976, Corder, 1967, Nemser
  1971 and Selinker 1972).
• L2 learners, like native speakers, represent the
  language that they are acquiring by means of a
  complex linguistic system.

12
Full Access theories

• Full Access theories (Schwartz and Sprouse (1994,
  1996) Epstein et al (1996, 1998), Grondin
  White (1996) UG must constitute the initial
  state in L2 acquisition.
• --initial state for the L2 L is the set of
  grammatical representations determined by the L1,
  e.g. abstract feature for past tense, instead
  of the surface phonological realizations of
  morphemes s, -ed
• --restructuring the initial-state G based on the
  L2 input
• --L1 transfer is relevant, but only once
  syntactic representations have been sufficiently
  elaborated to instantiate the property in
  question.

13
Full Access without Transfer

• --Full Access without Transfer L1 is not
  implicated in the interlanguage representation,
  initially and subsequently. (Epstein et al
  (1996), Flynn 1996).
• ? Parameters are set to L2 values, on the basis
  of UG interacting w/ L2 input, without a prior
  stage of L1 settings.
• ? L2 parameter values are attainable
• ? no changes in interlg parameter settings during
  the course of development

14
The Full Access and Full Transfer Hypothesis

• (Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996)) L1 G
  constitutes the initial state but that there will
  be subsequent restructuring in response to
  properties of the L2 input.
• --Parameters are initially set at their L1
  values but will subsequently be reset.
• ? have changes in interlg parameter settings
  during the course of development

15
Partial-access

• Partial-access (indirect) view, i.e. via L1
  Schachter (1988)
• L2 learners have full access to UG principles but
  can only access those parameters operative in
  their L1 they may be able to reset L1 parameters
  by means of general learning strategies
• L2 L1 acquisition are the same in part adults
  fail to achieve full linguistic competence

16
No-access view

• (the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis) Clahsen
  and Muysken (1986 Meisel 1991)
• L2 leraners no longer have access to the
  principles and parameters of UG genearl learning
  strategies replace UG
• L2 ? L1 acquisition adults fail to achieve full
  linguistic competence

17
Acquisition of Functional Categories

• IP, CP
• DP

18
Acquisition of Verbal Inflectional Morphology

• Dulay Burt (1973)
• present progressive contractible copula be gt
  possessive s 3rd sg. present -s
• Dulay Burt (1974)
• present progressive article a/the, contractible
  copula be gt possessive s 3rd sg. present -s
• Bailey et al. (1974)
• present progressive contractible copula be,
  plural s gt possessive s 3rd singular present
  -s

19
Acquisition of Verbal Inflectional Morphology

• Andersen (1978)
• V-related morphemes
• copula gt aspect (progressive be V-ing) gt tense
  (past) gt S-V agreement (3rd P sing.)
• (omitting have, V-en, and ø article)
• N-related morphemes
• the gt a/ plural s gt possessive s

20
VP and IP in the L2 acquisition of English verbal
morphology

• (1) Initial State a stage without IP
• ? copula be as an expletive V, which selects AP,
  NP, PP,
• --He cook/ He cooking (yesterday) /She old/Shes
  old (from Stauble)
• -- She no is old.
• (2) the emergence of I
• Aux be selects only V-ing? establishing Infl and
  IP
• Past tense (later than progressive aspect)
• Gueron Hoekstra 1995 Non-local binding
  relation between a Tense Op and I
• (3) 3rd person singular present tense

21
Acquisition stages

• (1) VP
• (2) IP represented, initially via the minimally
  specified copula be
• a. I (be) selects VP complement (V-ing)
• b. Tense Op ? past/present tense
• (3) Spec-Head agreement in IP (L1 influence)
• (based on Stauble, 1984)

22
Acquisition of Nominal Phrases(the English
articles the, a, Ø)
23
The distribution and interpretation of English
articles
24
The distribution and interpretation of English
articles

• Bickerton (1981) suggests that these differences
  can be captured in terms of two binary features
• Whether the article and associated NP
• refer to a specific entity
• /- specific referent
• are already known, from the previous discourse or
  form context, to the person
• /- hearer knowledge

25
(No Transcript)
26
SR -SR
- HK (5) a/ ? (6) a/ ?
HK (7) the (8) the/a/ ? (generic)

• (5) A How will you get a ticket for the
  England-France match?
• B I have a contact. I have ? contacts.
• (6) A What does she want to do when shes
  married?
• B Have a baby/ Have ? babies.
• (7) A What does she want to do when shes
  married?
• B Have a baby/ Have ? babies.
• A What will they do with the baby when they go
  to Africa?
• (8) A I saw a rabbit eating my carrots
  yesterday.
• B The rabbit can cause problems for the
  gardener.
• A rabbit can cause problems for a gardener.
• ? Rabbits can cause problems for ? gardeners.

27
Studies of the second language acquisition of
English articles

• Parrish (1987)
• --1 19 year-old Japanese speaker when living in
  the US for 3 weeks when data collection began
• --6 yrs classroom instruction in Japan ?
  beginning level
• --4 months of data collection
• --structured interactions (storytelling
  description of a place)

28
Parrish (1987)
29
Parrish (1987)

• Results
• The subject makes a lot of use of the zero
  article 228/436 (52.3) even in SR HK
• The SR -HK cell tells us that there are some
  cases where the subject has overgeneralized the
  9.4
• -- overgeneralizing ? SR, HK (inaccuracy
  rate) 32.1

30
Parrish (1987)

• The accuracy of each article in obligatory
  contexts
• Article Number
  
• a 6/32
  19
• the 37/50
  74
• zero 12/13
  92
• --? is used most in a non-target-like way. A was
  never used in contexts where the or ? are
  required by NSs

31
Parrish (1987)

• The relative accuracy of each article ?
• the is typically being used to mark NPs with
  specific reference.
• a is used to mark the fact that the NP is not
  known to the hearer.
• a emerges later than the.
• Ø is widely overgeneralized and appears to
  function as a default article.

32
Perdue (1992 61-88) Klein

• Klein Perdue (1992 61-88)
• Two Punjabi-speaking subjects
• In the UK for 13 and 20 months
• Had little instruction in English prior to that
  period
• --one subject no definite article (p. 68)
• --the other bare N is the most frequently used
  referential device

33
Huebner (1985)

• Huebner (1985)
• L2 English of a Hmong speaker from Laos.
• Longitudinal one-year study
• This subject was acquiring English in an
  untutored setting in the US and undertook a
  follow-up study 20 months later
• Date every 3 weeks from free conversation

34
Two studies of the second language acquisition of
English articles

• A contrast between da (a phonological
  approximation to native the) and Ø there is no
  contrast between da and a.
• After 6 weeks, da flooded all contexts.
• Week 21, drop da from -SR -HK
• Week 27, drop da from SR -HK
• 20 months later, a had begun to appear in the
  SR -HK

35
Two studies of the second language acquisition of
English articles

• Prrishs and Huebners subjects show a similar
  pattern
• da/the used frequently and predominantly in SR
  HK, but also used in -HK contexts
• a used much less frequently, but restricted to
  -HK
• All three studies (Andersen, 1978) suggest that
  L2 learners of English acquire the properties
  encoded by the English article system
  incrementally
• Andersen, 1978 the gt a/ plural s gt possessive
  s

36

• Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987), Huebner (1985)
• (bare NP)
• Specificity in the NP (marked by the/da)
• Hearer knowledge in the NP (marked by a/ Ø)
• Possessive s

37
The structure of English determiner phrases

• Abney (1987)
• John refuses to leave
• Johns refusal to leave
• Possessive s is a morpheme realizing the
  category determiner, or D

38
(No Transcript)
39
The structure of English determiner phrases

• Abneys proposal is that the article the, a, Ø,
  pronouns like my, your, her, etc., and
  demonstratives like this, that, etc., belongs to
  the class D.
• NPs are the projection of determiner-less Ns

40
(No Transcript)
41
The structure of English determiner phrases

• Tense OPi IP Ii .
• D OPi DP Di .
• If determiner is not co-indexed with the
  D-Operator its interpretation will be unknown
  referent and a/ Ø will be selected.
• DOPi IP I Saw Di/Dj rabbit in the garden
  yesterday

42

• The old mans friend
• The friend of the old man

43

• Its assumed that s assigns genitive Case to its
  specifier so DP raise to specifier of the topmost
  DP to receive Case.

44
(No Transcript)
45
Grammar-building in the SLA of DPs (Andersen
(1978), Parrish (1987), Huebner (1985))

• (bare NP)
• Specificity in the NP (marked by the/da)
• Hearer knowledge in the NP (marked by a/ Ø)
• Possessive s

• NP (lexical projection)
• D (head-complement local selection)
• ? non-local D-OP relation
• ? Spec-Head relation

46
Grammar-building in the SLA of DPs (Andersen
(1978), Parrish (1987), Huebner (1985))

• VP
• I(be) selects VP complement (NP/AP/ V-ing)
• Tense Op (?past)
• S-V agreement

• VP (lexical projection)
• I (head-complement local selection)
• non-local Tense OP relation
• ? Spec-Head non-local relation ( (L1 influence)

47
Initial state in SLA

• the point from which L2 learners start to build
  grammars
• Minimal Trees Hypothesis Vainikka
  Young-Sholten 1994 1996a, 1996b)
• only lexical categories are present at the
  earliest stage of L2 acquisition, and that
  during acquisition functional projections develop
  in succession. (1996a 7)
• initial transfer from the L1 of the properties of
  lexical categories
• functional categories are not L1 influenced but
  developed only in response to positive evidence
  from the L2

48
Initial state in SLA

• The Valueless Features H. (Eubank (1993/1994,
  1994a, 1996)
• --All the categories instantiated in the L1 are
  initially transferred into the mental G for the
  L2, but the specifications chose for the F
  categories by the L1 are neutralized (not
  specified)
• --optionality
• --the lg-specific properties of VP are
  transferred in the early stages

49
Initial state in SLA

• --Full Access theories (Schwartz and Sprouse
  (1994, 1996) Epstein et al (1996, 1998), Grondin
  White (1996)
• UG must constitute the initial state in L2
  acquisition.
• initial state for the L2 L is the set of
  grammatical representations determined by the L1,
  e.g. abstract feature for past tense, instead
  of the surface phonological realizations of
  morphemes s, -ed
• restructuring the initial-state G based on the L2
  input
• L1 transfer is relevant, but only once syntactic
  representations have been sufficiently elaborated
  to instantiate the property in question.

50
Initial state in SLA

• Modulated structure building (Hawkins) 2001)
• combination of minimal tree and full
  access/transfer theories
• initial L2 G lexical projections in principle,
  their structural properties are determined in
  principle by L1 (minimal trees)
• restructuring towards the L2 may be rapid,
  depending on the evidence available and the
  nature of the transferred property in question
  (full transfer/full access theory)
• functional Ps are established later than lexical
  Ps (minimal trees), the rapidity of establishment
  depending on the evidence available
• modulated structure building? structure
  building is influenced by properties of the L1 at
  the relevant point in the construction of a G,
  and not before

51
Robertson (2000)

• Optionality the variable use and nonuse of a
  particular surface feature, with no difference in
  meaning between the two forms.

52
Robertson (2000)

• 3 principles
• (1) determiner drop, analogous to pro-drop,
  an NP with def or indef reference need not be
  overtly marked for /- definiteness if it is
  included in the scope of the D of a preceding NP.
• (2) recoverablity principle an NP need not be
  overtly marked for /- definiteness if the
  information encoded in this feature is
  recoverable from the context.
• (3) Lexical transfer principle apply Chinese
  demonstratives and numeral yige