Week 10. Transfer and the

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 10. Transfer and the initial state for
  L2A, plus some language universals for good
  measure

2
UG in L2A so far

• UG principles
• (Subjacency, Binding Theory)
• UG parameters of variation
• (Subjacency bounding nodes, Binding domains, null
  subject, V?T)
• Justified in large part on the basis of L1.
• the complexity of language
• the paucity of useful data
• the uniform success and speed of L1ers acquiring
  language.

3
UG in L2A so far

• To what extent is UG still involved in L2A?
• Speakers interlanguage shows a lot of
  systematicity, complexity which also seems to be
  more than the linguistic input could motivate.
• The question then Is this systematicity left
  over (transferred) from the existing L1, where
  we know the systematicity exists already? Or is
  L2A also building up a new system like L1A?
• Weve seen that universal principles which
  operated in L1 seem to still operate in L2 (e.g.,
  ECP and Japanese case markers).

4
Initial state 3 options

• The L1 (parameter settings)
• Schwartz Sprouse (1996) Full Transfer/Full
  Access
• Parts of the L1 (certain parameter settings)
• Eubank (1993/4) Valueless Features Hypothesis
• Vainikka Young-Scholten (1994) Minimal trees
• Clean slate (UG defaults)
• Epstein et. al (1996)
• Platzack (1996) Initial Hypothesis of Syntax

5
Vainikka Young-Scholten

• VYS propose that phrase structure is built up
  from just a VP all the way up to a full clause.
• Similar to Radfords L1 proposal except that
  there is an order of acquisition even past the VP
  (i.e., IP before CP). Also similar to Rizzis L1
  truncation proposal. And of course, basically
  the same as Vainikkas L1 tree building
  proposal.
• VYS propose that both L1A and L2A involve this
  sort of tree building.

6
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A
CP
C?

• An adult clause, where kids end up.
• The subject pronoun is in nominative case (I, he,
  they), a case form reserved for SpecAgrP in
  finite clauses (cf. me, him, them or my, his, ).

AgrP
C
that
Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
she
T?
T
VP
will
V?
V
DP
eat
lunch
7
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A
CP
C?

• Very early on, kids are observed to use
  non-nominative subjects almost all the time (90)
  like
• My make a house
• Nina (20)
• The fact that the subject is non-nominative can
  be taken as an indication that it isnt in
  SpecAgrP.

AgrP
C
that
Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
she
T?
T
VP
will
V?
V
DP
eat
lunch
8
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A

• Vainikkas proposal was that children who do this
  are in a VP stage, where their entire syntactic
  representation of a sentence consists of a verb
  phrase.

VP
DP
V?
V
DP
my
make
a house
9
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A

• As children get older, they start using
  nominative subjects
• I color me
• Nina (21)
• But interestingly, they do not use nominative
  subjects in wh-questions
• Know what my making?
• Nina (24)

AgrP
Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
I
T?
T
VP
V?
V
DP
color
me
10
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A
AgrP

• I color me
• Nina (21)
• The nominative subject tells us that the kid has
  at least AgrP in their structure.
• Know what my making?
• Nina (24)
• Normally wh-movement implies a CP (wh-words are
  supposed to move into SpecCP).

Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
I
T?
T
VP
V?
V
DP
color
me
11
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A
AgrP

• Know what my making?
• Nina (24)
• However, if there is no CP, Vainikka hypothesizes
  that the wh-word goes to the highest specifier it
  can go toSpecAgrP. Which means that the subject
  cant be there, and hence cant be nominative.

Agr?
DPi
Agr
TP
what
T?
T
VP
DP
V?
ti
V
my
making
12
Vainikka (1993/4), L1A
CP
C?
AgrP
C

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

that
Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
she
T?
T
VP
will
V?
V
DP
eat
lunch
13
Vainikka (1993/4)

• So, to summarize the L1A proposal Acquisition
  goes in (syntactically identifiable stages).
  Those stages correspond to ever-greater
  articulation of the tree.
• VP stage
• No nominative subjects, no wh-questions.
• AgrP stage
• Nominative subjects except in wh-questions.
• CP stage
• Nominative subjects and wh-questions.

14
Vainikka Young-Scholtens primary claims about
L2A

• Vainikka Young-Scholten take this idea and
  propose that it also characterizes L2A That is
• L2A takes place in stages, grammars which
  successively replace each other (perhaps after a
  period of competition).
• The stages correspond to the height of the
  clausal structure.

15
Vainikka Young-Scholten

• VYS claim that L2 phrase structure initially has
  no functional projections, and so as a
  consequence the only information that can be
  transferred from L1 at the initial state is that
  information associated with lexical categories
  (specifically, headedness). No parameters tied to
  functional projections (e.g., V-gtT) are
  transferred.

16
VYSheadedness transfer

• Cross-sectional 6 Korean, 6 Spanish, 11 Turkish.
  Longitudinal 1 Spanish, 4 Italian.
• In the VP stage, speakers seem to produce
  sentences in which the headedness matches their
  L1 and not German.

L1 L1 head head-final VPs in L2
Korean/Turkish final 98
Italian/Spanish (I) initial 19
Italian/Spanish (II) initial 64
17
VYSheadedness transfer
VP-i L1 value transferred for head-parameter,
trees truncated at VP. VP-ii L2 value adopted
for head-parameter, trees still truncated at VP
NL VPs V-initial V-final
Bongiovanni I 20 13 (65) 7
Salvatore I 44 35 (80) 9
Jose S 20 15 (75) 5
Rosalinda S 24 24 (100) 0
Antonio S 68 20 48 (71)
Jose S 37 23 14 (38)
Lina I 24 7 17 (71)
Salvatore I 25 6 19 (76)
18
Predictions
CP
C?
AgrP
C

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

Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
T?
T
VP
V?
V
DP
19
Predictions
CP
C?
AgrP
C

• T/Agr (INFL)
• Modals and auxiliaries appear there
• Verbs, when they raise, raise to there.
• Subject agreement is controlled there
• C
• Complementizers (that, if) appear there
• Wh-questions involve movement to CP

Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
T?
T
VP
V?
V
DP
20
Predictions
CP
C?
AgrP
C

• So, if there is just a VP, we expect to find
• No evidence of verb raising.
• No consistent agreement with the subject.
• No modals or auxiliaries.
• No complementizers.
• No complex sentences (embedded sentences)
• No wh-movement.

Agr?
DP
Agr
TP
T?
T
VP
V?
V
DP
21
VYS L2AVP stage
stage L1 Aux Mod Default
VP Kor 1 1 68
VP Tur 0 1 75
VP-i It 0 0 65
VP-ii It 0 0 82
VP-i Sp 8 5 74
VP-ii Sp 1 1 57

• At the VP stage, we find lack of
• verb raising (INFL and/or CP)
• auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)
• an agreement paradigm (INFL)
• complementizers (CP)
• wh-movement (CP)

All came from Rosalinda (Sp.) three instances of
wolle want and five with is(t) isevidence
seems to be that she doesnt control IP yet.
22
VYS L2AVP stage

• At the VP stage, we find lack of
• verb raising (INFL and/or CP)
• auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)
• an agreement paradigm (INFL)
• complementizers (CP)
• wh-movement (CP)
• Antonio (Sp) 7 of 9 sentences with temporal
  adverbs show adverbverb order (no raising) 9 of
  10 with negation showed negverb order.
• Turkish/Korean (visible) verb-raising only 14.

23
VYS L2AVP stage

• At the VP stage, we find lack of
• verb raising (INFL and/or CP)
• auxiliaries and modals (generated in INFL)
• an agreement paradigm (INFL)
• complementizers (CP)
• wh-movement (CP)
• No embedded clauses with complementizers.
• No wh-questions with a fronted wh-phrase (at
  least, not that requires a CP analysis).
• No yes-no questions with a fronted verb.

24
VYS L2ATP stage

• After the VP stage, L2 learners move to a single
  functional projection, which appears to be TP.
• Modals and auxiliaries can start there.
• Verb raising can take place to there.
• Note the TL TP is head-final, however.
• Agreement seems still to be lacking (TP only, and
  not yet AgrP is acquired).

25
VYS L2ATP stage

• Characteristics of the TP stage
• optional verb raising (to T)
• some auxiliaries and modals (to T)
• lack of an agreement paradigm (not up to AgrP
  yet)
• lack of complementizers (CP)
• lack of wh-movement (CP)

stage L1 Aux Mod Default
TP Sp 21 9 41
TP Tur 0 5 6875
Now, Korean/Turkish speakers raise the verb
around 46 of the time.
26
VYS L2AAgrP stage

• After the TP stage, there seems to be an AgrP
  stage (where AgrP is head-initialdifferent from
  the eventual L2 grammar, where AgrP should be
  head-final)
• Properties of the AgrP stage
• verb raising frequent
• auxiliaries and modals common
• agreement paradigm acquired
• some embedded clauses with complementizers
• complex wh-questions attested.

27
VYS L2AAgrP

• Properties of the AgrP stage
• verb raising frequent
• auxiliaries and modals common
• agreement paradigm acquired
• some embedded clauses with complementizers
• complex wh-questions attested
• Turkish/Korean speakers raising the verb 76 of
  the time.
• CP structure? Seems to be on its way in, but
  VYS dont really have much to say about this.

28
Vainikka Young-Scholten

• Summary of the proposed stages

Top XP V-mmt aux/modals obligsubjs SVagrt embedded w/ C question formation
VP no no no no no no
FP opt some no no no no
AgrP yes yes yes yes no no
29
Stages

• So, L2ers go through VP, TP, AgrP, (CP) stages
• An important point about this is that this does
  not mean that a L2 learner at a given point in
  time is necessarily in exactly one stage,
  producing exactly one kind of structure.
• (My response on VYSs behalf to an objection
  raised by Epstein et al. 1996 VYSs endorsement
  should not be inferred.)
• The way to think of this is that there is a
  progression of stages, but that adjacent stages
  often co-exist for a timeso, between the VP
  and TP stages, some utterances are VPs, some are
  TPs.
• This might be perhaps comparable to knowledge of
  register in ones L1, except that there is a
  definite progression.

30
VYS summary

• So, Vainikka Young-Scholten propose that L2A is
  acquired by building up the syntactic treethat
  beginner L2ers have syntactic representations of
  their utterances which are lacking the functional
  projections which appear in the adult L1s
  representations, but that they gradually acquire
  the full structure.
• VYS also propose that the information about the
  VP is borrowed wholesale from the L1, that there
  is no stage prior to having just a VP.
• Lastly, VYS consider this L2A to be just like
  L1A in course of acquisition (though they leave
  open the question of speed/success/etc.)

31
Problems with Minimal Trees

• White (2003) reviews a number of difficulties
  that the Minimal Trees account has.
• Data seems to be not very consistent.
• Evidence for DP and NegP from VYSs own data.
• E-gtF kids manage to get V left of pas (Grondin
  White 1996)
• but cf. Hawkins et al. next week. Also, these are
  kids who might have benefited from earlier
  exposure to French.
• VYS also propose at one point that V-gtT is the
  default value.
• Some examples of early embedded clauses and SAI
  (evidence of CP) but VYSs criteria would also
  lead to the conclusion of no IP at the same
  point. (Gavruseva Lardiere 1996).

32
Problems with Minimal Trees

• Criteria for stages are rather arbitrary.
• VYS count something as acquired if it appears
  more than 60 of the time. Why 60? For kids, the
  arbitrary cutoff is often set at 90.
• Is morphology really the best indicator of
  knowledge?
• Prévost White, discussed a couple of weeks
  hence, say no better is to look at the
  properties like word order that the functional
  categories are supposed to be responsible for.
• To account for apparent V2 without CP, VYS need
  a weird German story in which TP/AgrP starts out
  head-initial but is later returned to its proper
  head-final status.

33
Paradis et al. (1998)

• Paradis et al. (1998) looked at 15
  English-speaking children in Québec, learning
  French (since kindergarten, interviewed at the
  end of grade one), and sought to look for
  evidence for (or against) this kind of tree
  building in their syntax.
• They looked at morphology to determine when the
  children controlled it (vs. producing a
  default) and whether there was a difference
  between the onset of tense and the onset of
  agreement.
• On one interpretation of VYS, they predict that
  tense should be controlled before agreement,
  since TP is lower in the tree that AgrP.

34
Paradis et al. (1998)
Agr before T T before Agr Both T and Agr at outset 3pl before tense 3pl after tense Both 3pl and tense at outset
8 0 7 0 12 3
Past before Fut Fut before Past Both Fut and Past at outset
6 2 7

• Agr reliably before T
• 3pl late (of agreements).
• Future late (of tenses).

35
Paradis et al. (1998)

• So, the interpretation of this information might
  be that
• (Child) L2A does seem to progress in stages.
• This isnt strictly compatible with the tree
  building approach, however, if TP is lower than
  AgrP. It would require slight revisions to make
  this work out (not necessarily drastic revisions).

36
Eubank Valueless FeaturesHypothesis

• Another contender for the title of Theory of the
  Initial State is the Valueless Features
  Hypothesis of Eubank (1993/4).
• Like Minimal Trees, the VFH posits essentially
  that functional parameters are not initially set
  (not transferred from the L1).
• Unlike Minimal Trees, the VFH does assume that
  the entire functional structure is there. But,
  e.g., for V-gtT, the parameter/feature value that
  determines whether V moves to T is undefined.

37
VFH

• The interpretation of a valueless feature is
  the crucial point here. Its not clear really
  what this should mean, but Eubank takes it to
  mean something like not consistently on or off.
  Hence, again using V-gtT as an example, the verb
  is predicted to sometimes raise (V-gtT on) and
  sometimes not (V-gtT off). E.g., either is fine in
  L2 English of
• Pat eats often apples.
• Pat often eats apples.

38
VFH and V-gtT

• In fact (as well discuss next week more
  carefully), White did a well-known series of
  experiments on FgtL2E learners that did show that
  the learners accepted both.
• Pat eats often apples.
• Pat often eats apples.
• Eubank takes this as evidence for VFH, but White
  (1992, 2003) notes that its unexpected for the
  VFH that they dont also allow verb raising past
  negation.
• Pat eats not apples.
• Pat does not eat apples.

39
Yuan (2001) and F,EgtL2C

• Yuan (2001) looked at EgtL2C and FgtL2C learners
  responses to alternative verb-adverb orders in
  Chinese. L1 Chinese allows only Adv-V order (no
  raising).
• Zhangsan changchang kan dianshi.
• Zhangsan kan changchang dianshi.
• But neither group (and notably not even FgtL2C)
  ever produced/accepted the V-Adv order. VFH, but
  also possibly FTFA (to be discussed soon).
• One further note Yuans subjects were adults,
  Whites were children. This might have mattered.

40
Eubanks own experiments

• Eubank Grace (1998) tried an interesting
  methodology in an experiment to test for
  grammaticality of raised-verb structures in IL
  grammars. Something like a lexical decision
  task but with sentences (are these the same or
  different?), recording the reaction time, and
  based on the finding that native speakers are
  slower to react to ungrammatical sentences.

41
Eubank Grace (1998)

• EG tested CgtL2E speakers, divided them into two
  groups based on a pretest of their production of
  subject-verb agreement (idea no-agreement
  subjects would have not valued their features
  yet, agreement subjects have at least valued
  some of them).
• Finding No-agreement subjects acted like native
  speakers, agreement subjects didnt differentiate
  between grammatical and ungrammatical verb-adverb
  orders.
• Hmm.

42
Eubank et al. (1997)

• Same basic premises, different tasks
• Tom draws slowly jumping monkeys.
• For a V-raiser, this should be ambiguous (is the
  jumping slow or is the drawing slow?). Eubank et
  al. (1997) used a kind of TVJ task to test this.
• Even prior to looking at the results, one problem
  here is that this is fine in L1 English if slowly
  is taken as a parenthetical (Tom draws slowly
  jumping monkeys). But thats the crucial
  interpretation that is supposed to show verb
  raising is grammatical. What could we conclude,
  no matter what the results are?

43
Eubank et al. (1997)

• The actual results didnt go along very well with
  the predictions either. Pretty low acceptance
  rate of raised-V interpretations if theyre
  really supposed to be grammatical in the IL. And
  the agreement group wasnt acting
  native-speaker-like either, even though they
  should have valued the feature.
• Eubank et al. actually go further with the VFH,
  hypothesizing that this is not only the initial
  state, but also the inescapable final stateL2
  features cannot be valued (hence the lack of
  serious improvement among the agreement
  groupLocal Impairment, for next week).

44
Schwartz 1998

• Promotes the idea that L2 patterns come about
  from full transfer and full access.
• The entire L1 grammar (not just short trees) is
  the starting point.
• Nothing stops parameters from being reset in the
  IL.

45
Erdem (Haznedar 1995)

• An initial SOV stage (transfer from Turkish) is
  evident, followed by a switch to SVO.

46
N-Adj orderParodi et al. (1997)

• jene drei interessanten Bücherthose three
  interesting.pl books
• ku se-kwon-uy caemiissnun chaek-tulthat
  three-cl-gen interesting book-pl
• ben-im pekçok inginç kitab-Im1sg-gen many
  interesting book-1sg
• quei tre libri interessantithose three books
  interesting.pl
• esos tres libros interesantes those three books
  interesting.pl

47
N-Adj in Romance

• The standard way of looking at N-Adj order in
  Romance (in terms of native speaker adult syntax)
  is like this
• Adj N is the base order
• German, Korean, Turkish
• N moves over Adj in Romance
• Spanish, Italian
• What did the L2ers do learning German?

DP
D?
D
NP
N?
adjective
N

48
Parodis 1997N-Adj order
NL N-Adj (error)
Bongiovanni I 3/81/5 37.520.0
Lina I 3/230/81/11 13.00.09.1
Bruno I 9/3217/640/12 28.126.60.0
Ana S 7/280/10 25.00.0
Koreans K 1/102 1.0
Turks T 0/103 0.0
49
So

• So, movement seems to be initially transferred,
  and has to be unlearned.
• The evidence for the tree building approach
  doesnt seem all that strong anymore.
• No nice Case results like in L1.
• Higher parameters seem to transfer (VFH,
  Minimal Trees)
• Morphology and finiteness somewhat separate (to
  be discussed in two weeks).

50
No transfer/Full access

• Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono (1996) wrote a
  well-known BBS article endorsing the view that
  L2A is not only UG-constrained, but that it
  basically starts over with UG like L1A does.
• Editorial comment For such a public article, it
  really is not very well executed. Particularly
  grating is the mischaracterization and narrow
  readings of other theoretical approaches, but
  even their own position which on its face
  doesnt even seem viable is very loosely argued.
  Its worth reading, but the responses are at
  least as important as the article.

51
New parameter settings

• Japanese vs. English SOV vs. SVO.
• EFM make a mysterious statement
• Left-headed C correlates with right-branching
  adjunction and right-headed C with
  left-branching adjunction
• followed by an example of how English allows
  both left and right adjunction.
• What EFM must mean is that SVO language-speakers
  prefer postposed adverbial clauses.
• The worker called the owner when the engineer
  finished the plans.
• When the actor finished the book the woman
  called the professor.

52
New parameter settings

• And then EFM proceed to report that Japanese
  speakers (JgtL2E) dont significantly prefer
  preverbal adverbial clauses (purported SOV
  preference), and even eventually prefer
  postverbal adverbial clauses (purported SVO
  preference).
• But preferences are not parameter settings in any
  obvious way. Nothing is ruled out in any
  eventthis is not a very useful result (see also
  Schwartzs response).

53
Martohardjono 1993

• Interesting test of relative judgments.
• It is generally agreed that ECP violations
• Which waiter did the man leave the table after
  spilled the soup?
• are worse than Subjacency violations
• Which patient did Max explain how the poison
  killed?
• Do L2ers get these kinds of judgments?

54
Martohardjono 1993

• Turns out, yeah, they seem to.
• But it turns out that speakers of languages
  without overt wh-movement had lower accuracy on
  judging the violations overall.
• So L1 has some effect (although EFM dont really
  talk about this much, something which occupies
  much of the peer reviewers time).
• EFM suggest that these judgments cannot be coming
  from the L1 alone, but of course this also relies
  on the view that L1 is significantly impoverished
  by instantiation (not the common view, not even
  in 1996).

55
EFMs experiment

• Elicited imitation, Japanese speakers learning
  English (33 kids, 18 adults).
• Trying to elicit sentences with things associated
  with functional categories (tense marking,
  modals, do-support for IP topicalization,
  relative clauses, wh-questions for CP).
• The point was actually more to refute the idea
  that adults have UG turned off after a
  critical period than anything else (a
  discussion well return to)

56
EFMs experiment

• Kids did equally well in this repetition task as
  adults.
• Kids seemed to get around 70 success on
  IP-related things, around 50 success on
  CP-related things. The deeper topicalizations are
  harder than shallower topicalizations.
• EFM would have you believe
• Based on their data collapsing over all kids and
  over all adults, there are no stages.
• CP is there just as much as IP is there, despite
  the higher success with IP, just because
  CP-related structures are intrinsically
  harder/more complex.
• It could be true, but its certainly not a
  knock-down argument against VYS or any of the
  other alternatives.
• Also, as White (2003) notes, none of these
  sentences were ungrammatical (which we might have
  expected to be repaired under repetition) if
  this is even a reliable task to begin with.

57
Stepping back a bit

• Lets take some time to look at a few results
  coming out of an earlier tradition, not strictly
  Principles Parameters (and not covered by
  White) but still suggesting that to a certain
  extent L2 learners may know something (perhaps
  unconsciously) about what Language is like
  (which is a certain way we might characterize the
  content of UG).

58
Typological universals

• 1960s and 1970s saw a lot of activity aimed at
  identifying language universals, properties of
  Language.
• Class of possible languages is smaller than you
  might think.
• If a language has one property (A), it will
  necessarily have another (B).
• AB, AB, AB but never AB.

59
(Typological) universals

• All languages have vowels.
• If a language has VSO as its basic word order,
  then it has prepositions (vs. postpositions).

VSO? Adposition type Yes No
Prepositions Welsh English
Postpositions None Japanese
60
Markedness

• Having duals implies having plurals
• Having plurals says nothing about having duals.
• Having duals is markedinfrequent, more complex.
  Having plurals is (relative to having duals)
  unmarked.
• Generally markedness is in terms of comparable
  dimensions, but you could also say that being VSO
  is marked relative to having prepositions.

61
Markedness

• Markedness actually has been used in a couple
  of different ways, although they share a common
  core.
• Marked More unlikely, in some sense.
• Unmarked More likely, in some sense.
• You have to mark something marked unmarked is
  what you get if you dont say anything extra.

62
Unlikeliness

• Typological/crosslinguistic infrequency.
• VOS word order is marked.
• More complex constructions.
• ts is more marked than t.
• The non-default setting of a parameter.
• Non-null subjects?
• Language-specific/idiosyncratic features.
• Vs. UG/universal features?

63
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• (On the boundaries of psychophysics, linguistics,
  anthropology, and with issues about its
  interpretation, but still)
• Basic color terms across languages.
• It turns out that languages differ in how many
  color terms count as basic. (blueish,
  salmon-colored, crimson, blond, are not basic).

64
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• The segmentation of experience by speech symbols
  is essentially arbitrary. The different sets of
  words for color in various languages are perhaps
  the best ready evidence for such essential
  arbitrariness. For example, in a high percentage
  of African languages, there are only three color
  words, corresponding to our white, black, red,
  which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum.
  In the Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are
  five basic color words, and here blue and
  green are subsumed under a single term.
• Eugene Nida (1959)

65
Berlin Kay 1969 Color terms

• Japanese (Japan)
• Korean (Korea)
• Pomo (California)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Swahili (East Africa)
• Tagalog (Philippines)
• Thai (Thailand)
• Tzeltal (Southern Mexico)
• Urdu (India)
• Vietnamese (Vietnam)

• Arabic (Lebanon)
• Bulgarian (Bulgaria)
• Catalan (Spain)
• Cantonese (China)
• Mandarin (China)
• English (US)
• Hebrew (Israel)
• Hungarian (Hungary)
• Ibibo (Nigeria)
• Indonesian (Indonesia)

66
Eleven possible basic color terms

• White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown,
  purple, pink, orange, gray.
• All languages contain term for white and black.
• Has 3 terms, contains a term for red.
• Has 4 terms, contains green or yellow.
• Has 5 terms, contains both green and yellow.
• Has 6 terms, contains blue.
• Has 7 terms, contains brown.
• Has 8 or more terms, chosen from purple, pink,
  orange, gray

67
Color hierarchy

• White, black
• Red
• Green, yellow
• Blue
• Brown
• Purple, pink, orange, gray
• Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there
  should be 2048 possible setsbut only 22 (1) are
  attested.

68
Color terms

• BW Jalé (New Guinea) brilliant vs. dull
• BWR Tiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals
  in Seven Rivers District, Queensland.
• BWRG Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)
• BWRY Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people
  (Queensland)
• BWRYG Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)
• BWRYGU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe
  (Nigeria), Mandarin?
• BWRYGUO Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam
  (southern India)

69
Color terms

• Interesting questions abound, including why this
  order, why these elevenand there are potential
  reasons for it that can be drawn from the
  perception of color spaces which we will not
  attempt here.
• The point is This is a fact about Language If
  you have a basic color term for blue, you also
  have basic color terms for black, white, red,
  green, and yellow.

70
Implicational hierarchy

• This is a ranking of markedness or an
  implicational hierarchy.
• Having blue is more marked than having (any or
  all of) yellow, green, red, white, and black.
• Having green is more marked than having red
• Like a set of implicational universals
• Blue implies yellow Brown implies blue
• Blue implies green Pink implies brown
• Yellow or green imply red Orange implies brown
• Red implies black Gray implies brown
• Red implies white Purple implies brown

71
L2A?

• Our overarching themeHow much is L2/IL like a
  L1?
• Do IL/L2 languages obey the language universals
  that hold of native languages?
• This question is slightly less theory-laden than
  the questions we were asking about principles and
  parameters, although its similar
• To my knowledge nobody has studied L2
  acquisitions of color terms

72
Question formation

• Declarative John will buy coffee.
• Wh-inversion What will John buy?
• Wh-fronting What will John buy?
• Yes/No-inversion Will John buy coffee?
• Greenberg (1963)
• Wh-inversion implies Wh-fronting.
• Yes/No-inversion implies Wh-inversion.

73
Wh-inversion?Wh-fronting

• English, German Both.
• What will John buy?
• Japanese Korean neither.
• John will buy what?
• Finnish Wh-fronting only.
• What John will buy?
• Unattested Wh-inversion only.
• Will John buy what?

74
Y/N-inversion?Wh-inversion

• English Both
• Will John buy coffee? What will John buy?
• Japanese Neither
• John will buy coffee? John will buy what?
• Lithuanian Wh-inversion only.
• John will buy coffee? What will John buy?
• Unattested Y/N-inversion only.
• Will John buy coffee? What John will buy?

75
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• L1 Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish (4)
• L2 English
• Note L1s chosen because they are neither/neither
  type languages, to avoid questions of transfer.
• Subjects tried to determine what was going on in
  a scene by asking questions.

76
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• Example Y/N Qs
• Did she finished two bottle wine?
• Is Lou and Patty known each other?
• Sue does drink orange juice?
• Her parents are rich?
• Is this story is chronological in a order?
• Does Joan has a husband?
• Yesterday is Sue did drink two bottles of wine?

77
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)

• Example Wh-Qs
• Why Sue didnt look solution for her problem?
• Where Sue is living?
• Why did Sue stops drinking?
• Why is Pattys going robbing the bank?
• What they are radicals?
• What Sue and Patty connection?
• Why she was angry?

78
Eckman et al. (1989)wh-inv?wh-fronting?result
s
Whinv Whfr
SM K 25 NO 100 YES
UA T 54 NO 100 YES
TS J 70 NO 100 YES
MK K 80 NO 100 YES
RO J 88 NO 100 YES
KO J 95 YES 100 YES
MH J 95 YES 100 YES
NE T 95 YES 100 YES
SI J 95 YES 100 YES
G T 100 YES 100 YES
MA T 100 YES 100 YES
ST J 100 YES 100 YES
TM K 100 YES 100 YES
YK J 100 YES 100 YES
79
Eckman et al. (1989)YN-inv.? wh-inv.?results
YNinv WHinv
SM K 8 NO 25 NO
MK K 38 NO 80 NO
YK J 51 NO 100 YES
TS J 67 NO 70 NO
TM K 83 NO 100 YES
RO J 85 NO 88 NO
BG T 86 NO 100 YES
MA T 88 NO 100 YES
UA T 91 YES 54 NO
KO J 93 YES 95 YES
MH J 95 YES 95 YES
NE T 100 YES 95 YES
SI J 100 YES 95 YES
ST J 100 YES 100 YES
80
Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)
Yes/no inversion Wh-inversion Yes (VS) No (SV)
Yes (VS) 5 4
No (SV) 1 4
81
Eckmans Markedness Differential Hypothesis

• Markedness. A phenomenon or structure X in some
  language is relatively more marked than some
  other phenomenon or structure Y if
  cross-linguistically the presence of X in a
  language implies the presence of Y, but the
  presence of Y does not imply the presence of X.
• Duals imply plurals.
• Wh-inversion implies wh-fronting.
• Blue implies red.
• (but what counts as a phenomenon or structure?)

82
Markedness Differential Hypothesis

• MDH The areas of difficulty that a second
  language learner will have can be predicted on
  the basis of a comparison of the NL and TL such
  that
• Those areas of the TL that are different from the
  NL and are relatively more marked than in the NL
  will be difficult
• The degree of difficulty associated with those
  aspects of the TL that are different and more
  marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative
  degree of markedness associated with those
  aspects
• Those areas of the TL that are different than the
  NL but are not relatively more marked than in the
  NL will not be difficult.
• Notice that this is assuming conscious effort
  again. Perhaps it need not, depending on how you
  interpret difficulty but it seems like Eckman
  means it this way.
• Another possible way to look at it is in terms of
  parameter settings and (Subset Principle
  compliant) defaults, coupled with a FT/FA type
  theory

83
MDH exampleWord-final segments

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• All Ls allow vowels word-finallysome only allow
  vowels. Some (e.g., Mandarin, Japanese) allow
  only vowels and sonorants. Some (e.g., Polish)
  allow vowels, sonorants, but only voiceless
  obstruents. English allows all four types.

84
Eckman (1981)
Spanish L1 Spanish L1 Mandarin L1 Mandarin L1
Gloss IL form Gloss IL form
Bob b p Tag tæg
Bobby b bi And ænd
Red r?t Wet w t
Wet w t Deck d?k
Sick sIk Letter l?t r
Bleeding blidIn
c
e
c
e
e
e
e
85
MDH exampleWord-final segments

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• Idea Mandarin has neither voiceless nor voiced
  obstruents in the L1using a voiceless obstruent
  in place of a TL voiced obstruent is still not L1
  compliant and is a big markedness jump. Adding a
  vowel is L1 compliant. Spanish has voiceless
  obstruents, to using a voiceless obstruent for a
  TL voiced obstruent is L1 compliant.

86
MDH and IL

• The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys the
  implicational universals too.
• Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that this is at
  least reasonable.
• The MDH suggests that there is a natural order of
  L2A along a markedness scale (stepping to the
  next level of markedness is easiest).
• Lets consider what it means that an IL obeys
  implicational universals

87
MDH and IL

• IL obeys implicational universals.
• That is, we know that IL is a language.
• So, we know that languages are such that having
  word-final voiceless obstruents implies that you
  also have word-final sonorant consonants, among
  other things.
• What would happen if we taught Japanese L2
  learners of English onlyand at the outsetvoiced
  obstruents?

88
Generalizing with markedness scales

• Voiced obstruents most marked Surge
• Voiceless obstruents Coke
• Sonorant consonants Mountain
• Vowels least marked Coffee
• Japanese learner of English will have an easier
  time at each step learning voiceless obstruents
  and then voiced obstruents.
• Butif taught voiced obstruents immediately, the
  fact that the IL obeys implicational (markedness)
  universals means that voiceless obstruents come
  for free.

89
Nifty!

• Does it work? Does it help?
• Answers seem to be
• Yes, it seems to at least sort of work.
• Maybe it helps.
• Learning a marked structure is harder. So, if you
  learn a marked structure, you can automatically
  generalize to the less marked structures, but was
  it faster than learning the easier steps in
  succession would have been?

90
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• Keenan Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among
  the kinds of relative clauses that languages
  allow.
• The astronaut (that) I met yesterday.
• Head noun astronaut
• Modifying clause(that/who) I met yesterday.
• Compare I met the astronaut yesterday.
• This is an object relative because the place
  where the head noun would be in the simple
  sentence version is the object.

91
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• There are several kinds of relative clauses,
  based on where the head noun comes from in the
  modifying clause
• The astronaut
• I met yesterday object
• who met me yesterday subject
• I gave a book to indirect object
• I was talking about obj. of P
• whose house I like Genitive (possessor)
• I am braver than obj. of comparative

92
The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• Turns out Languages differ in what positions
  they allow relative clauses to be formed on.
• English allows all the positions mentioned to be
  used to make relative clauses.
• Arabic allows relative clauses to be formed only
  with subjects.
• Greek allows relative clauses to be formed only
  with subjects or objects.

93
Resumptive pronouns

• The guy who they dont know whether he wants to
  come.
• A student who I cant make any sense out of the
  papers he writes.
• The actress who Tom wondered whether her father
  was rich.
• In cases where relative clause formation is not
  allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged by means of
  a pronoun in the position that the head noun is
  to be associated with.

94
NPAH and resumptive pronouns

• Generally speaking, it turns out that in
  languages which do not allow relative clauses to
  be formed off a certain position, they will
  instead allow relative clauses with a resumptive
  pronoun in that position.
• Arabic allows only subject relative clauses. But
  for all other positions allows a resumptive
  pronoun construction, analogous to
• The book that John bought it.
• The tree that John is standing by it.
• The astronaut that John gave him a present.

95
NPAH

• The positions off which you can relativize
  appears to be an implicational hierarchy.

Lang. SUB DO IO OP GEN OCOMP
Arabic
Greek ? ?
Japanese /
Persian ()
96
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

97
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Will also allow these.
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

98
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy

• More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of
  difficulty (or (in)accessibility) in the
  types of relative clauses.
• A language which allows this
• Will also allow these. But not these
• Subj gt Obj gt IO gt OPrep gt Poss gt OComp

99
Relation to L2A?

• Suppose that KoL includes where the target
  language is on the NPAH.
• Do L2ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple relative
  clauses before the others?
• Do L2ers transfer the position of their L1
  first?
• Does a L2ers interlanguage grammar obey this
  typological generalization (if they can
  relativize a particular point on the NPAH, can
  they relativize everything higher too?)?

100
NPAH and L2A?

• Probably The higher something is on the NPAH,
  the easier (faster) it is to learn.
• So, it might be easier to start by teaching
  subject relatives, then object, then indirect
  object, etc. At each step, the difficulty would
  be low.
• But, it might be more efficient to teach the
  (hard) object of a comparisonbecause if L2ers
  interlanguage grammar includes whatever the NPAH
  describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible implies
  that everything (higher) on the NPAH is possible
  too. That is, they might know it without
  instruction. (Same issue as before with the
  phonology)

101
NPAH in L2A

• Very widely studied implicational universal in
  L2Amany people have addressed the question of
  whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether
  teaching aa marked structure can help.
• Eckman et al. (1989) was about this second
  question

102
Change from pre- to post-testEckman, Bell,
Nelson (1988)
103
Transfer, markedness,

• Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the other way,
  English?Korean.
• English Relativizes on all 6 positions.
• Korean Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)

S SU do IO OP GE
13
14 -
16 - -
29 - - -
31 - - - -
20 - - - - -
104
Transfer, markedness,

• The original question Do was looking at was Do
  English speakers transfer their position on the
  NPAH to the IL Korean?
• But look If English allows all 6 positions, why
  do some of the learners only relativize down to
  DO, some to IO, some to OPREP?
• It looks like they started over.

105
Subset principle?
A tempting analogy in some cases, parameters
seem to be ranked in terms of how permissive each
setting is.
I
E

• Null subject parameter
• Option (a) Null subjects are permitted.
• Option (b) Null subjects are not permitted.
• Italian option a, English option b.

106
Reminder Subset Principle

• The idea is
• If one has only positive evidence, and
• If parameters are organized in terms of
  permissiveness,
• Then for a parameter setting to be learnable, the
  starting point needs to be the subset setting of
  the parameter.
• The Subset principle says that learners should
  start with the English setting of the null
  subject parameter and move to the Italian setting
  if evidence appears.

I
E
107
Reminder Subset Principle

• The Subset Principle is basically that learners
  are conservativethey only assume a grammar
  sufficient to generate the sentences they hear,
  allowing positive evidence to serve to move them
  to a different parameter setting.
• Applied to L2 Given a choice, the L2er assumes
  a grammatical option that generates a subset of
  the what the alternative generates.
• Does this describe L2A?
• Is this a useful sense of markedness?

108
Subset principle and markedness

• Based on the Subset principle, wed expect the
  unmarked values (in a UG where languages are
  learnable) to be the ones which produce the
  smallest grammars.
• Given that in L1A we dont seem to see any
  misset parameters, we have at least indirect
  evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is
  there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH
  results constitute such evidence?

109
Subset vs. Transfer

• The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say
  that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the
  maximally conservative grammar.
• Another, mutually exclusive possibility
  (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A
  starts with the L1 setting.
• This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2,
  where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and
  L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, only negative
  evidence could move the L2er to the right
  setting.
• Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.

110
NPAH and processing?

• At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH
  results following from the Subset Principle is
  just that relative clauses formed on positions
  lower in the hierarchy are harder to process.
  Consider
• The astronaut
• who IP t met me yesterday SUB
• who IP I VP met t yesterday DO
• who IP I VP gave a book PP to t IO
• who IP I was VP talking PP about t OPREP
• whose house IP I VP like DP t s house GEN
• who IP I am AP brave degP -er thanP than t
  OCOMP

111
NPAH and processing?

• If its about processing, then the reason L2ers
  progress through the hierarchy might be that
  initially they have limited processing
  roomtheyre working too hard at the L2 to be
  able to process such deep extractions.
• Why are they working so hard?
• (Well, maybe L2A is like learning history?)

112
NPAH and processing?

• Is the NPAH itself simply a result of processing?
• The NPAH is a typological generalization about
  languages not about the course of acquisition.
• Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for
  processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.
• The NPAH may still be real, still be a markedness
  hierarchy based in something grammatical, but it
  turns out to be confounded by processing.
• So finding evidence of NPAH position transfer is
  very difficult.

113
Subset problems?

• One problem, though, is that many of the
  parameters of variation we think of today dont
  seem to be really in a subset-superset relation.
  So there has to be something else going on in
  these cases anyway.
• V?T
• Yes vSVAO, SAVO
• No SVAO, vSAVO
• Anaphor type
• Monomorphemic vLD, Non-subject
• Polymorphemic LD, vNon-subject

114
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?