Explaining the

1
Explaining the syntax-before-discourse
phenomenonPronominal subject distribution in L1
Greek L2 Spanish

• Hispanic Linguistics Symposium
• London-Ontario, Oct 2006
• Cristóbal Lozano clozan2_at_yahoo.com
• Universidad de Granada
• http//www.uam.es/cristobal.lozano

2
1. The phenomenon

• Observation Syntax before Discourse.
• Syntax native-like, early acquisition
• Discourse deficits, residual deficits
  (optionailty)
• Context 2 properties of pro-drop parameter

Null pronominal subjects SV inversion

• Pronominals
• L1 Eng L2 Spa Al-Kasey Perez-Leroux 1998,
  Liceras 1989, Liceras Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002
  2003, Montrul Rodriguez-Louro 2006,
  Perez-Leroux al 1999, Perez-Leorux Glass 1997
  1999, Phinney 1987.
• L1 Spa L2 Greek Lozano 2003
• L1 Eng L2 Ital Sorace Filiaci 2006
• L1 Croat L2 Ital Kras 2006
• L1 Ital L2 Spa Bini 1993
• L1 Jap L2 Eng Polio 1995
• SV inversion
• L1 Spa L2 English Lozano 2006a, Hertel 2003
• L1 Spa L2 Greek Lozano 2006b
• L1 several L2 Italian Belletti Leonini 2004
• L1 Quechua L2 Spa Camacho 1999

• Pronominals
• L1 Eng / Ital Serratrice 2004, Serratrice al
  2004, Tsimpli et al 2004
• L1 Ital / Dutch Pinto 2006
• L1 Ital / Ger Müller al 2002
• L1 Spa / Eng Paradis Navarro 2003
• Pronominals
• L2 Eng L1 Spa Montrul 2004, Satterfield 2003
• L2 Eng L1 Greek/Ital Tsimpli et al 2004
• SV inversion
• L2 Eng L1 Catalan Helland 2004
• Pronominals
• L1 Spa Grinstead 2004
• L1 Eng Chien Wexler 1990, Grodzinsky
  Reinhart 1993
• Sorace 2004 for overview

L2 acquisition
L1 biling
L1 attrition
L1
3
2. Explaining the causes

• ? Representational deficits
• Sorace (2004), Sorace Filiaci (2006)
• Underspecification of interpretable features
  at syntax-discourse.
• Lozano (2006a, 2006b)
• Underspecification of -interpretable features
  at syntax.

• ? Processing deficits
• Sorace Filiaci (2006), Sorace (2005, 2006), in
  line with Clahsen Felser (2006).
• Language processor deficits when processing
  syntax-discourse properties.

4
3. Anaphora resolution

• Italian Carminati 2002, 2005
• Spanish Alonso-Ovalle et al 2002
• Also operational in other pro-drop langs
  Croatian (Kras 2006), Romanian (Geber 2006).

• Position of Antecedent Stragegy (PAS)
• NULL strong bias towards antecedent in SpecIP
  (subject position, topic).
• OVERT biases towards antecedent in lower position
  (object position).
• PAS ? structural configuration guides language
  processor in choosing relevant antecedent.

5
4. Forward anaphora PAS

• Overt ? antecedent lower position.
• Null ? antecedent in Spec,IP

6
5. Position of Antecedent Strategy (PAS) and
Avoid Miscommunication Principle (AMP)

• Topic
• Observance of PAS null selects subject in
  Spec,IP. Structurally based

• Contrastive Focus
• Apparent violation of PAS overt has selected
  subject in Spec,IP
• Observance of AMP overt is required to avoid
  ambiguity. Discursively based

7
6. PAS at syntax-discourse interface

• PAS is at syntax-discourse interface (Sorace
  Filiaci 2006) ? since violations of PAS and AMP
  lead to pragmatic anomaly BUT not
  ungrammaticality.

8
7. INTERMEDIATE SUMMARY
Topic condition

• Processor could also match correct antecedent
  but
• Violation of PAS

• Processor can match antecedent.
• Observance of PAS (very robust)

• Unambiguous.
• Observance of PAS.

9
8. Spanish and Greek

• Topic condition
• Focus condition

• Spanish Luján 1999, Rigau 1986, Picallo 1994,
  Alonso-Ovalle DIntrono 2000, Fernández-Soriano
  1989, 1993, 1999, Montalbetti 1984, etc.
• Greek Grimshaw et al 1998, Dimitriadis 1996,,
  Alexiadou Anagnostopoulou 1998, Montalbetti
  1984, Miltsakaki 2001, etc.

10
9.Previous studies L2 Italian

• Sorace Filiaci (2006) L1 Eng L2 Ital
  (near-natives).
• Kras (2006) L1 Croat L2 Ital (near-natives).
• Null subjects
• Near-natives natives
• Null refers to matrix subject in Spec,IP ? null
  encodes topic
• Overt subjects
• Near-natives ? natives
• Overt refers to matrix object BUT
• Overt may refer to matrix subject (prag
  anomalous) ? violation of PAS ?overt incorrectly
  encodes topic
• Unidirectionality of results (deficits with OVERT
  but not with NULL).

11
10.Previous studies L2 Spanish

• L1 Eng ? L2 Spa
• Formal licensing properties in place from earlier
  stages.
• Discursive properties are late-acquired or
  deficit.
• Al-Kasey Perez-Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989,
  Liceras Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002, 2003, Montrul
  Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux al 1999,
  Perez-Leorux Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987.
• Unidirectionality is the norm (overuse of overt),
  but bidirectionality also attested (overuse of
  overt AND overuse of null) Montrul
  Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leorux Glass 1997
• Attrition L2 Eng ? L2 Spa
• Satterfield (2003) overuse of overt, correct use
  of null
• Cuando ellos vienen aquí, ellos lo pierden
  i.e., el español, su lengua

12
11. This study novelty

• Previous studies L1 Eng ? L2 Spa
• L1 Eng ? L2 Ital
• This study L1 Greek L2 Spa
• Previous L2 studies near-natives only
• This study developmental
• Forward anaphora only
• To discard effects of antecedent position
  (forward vs. backward)
• Antecedent subject in Spec,IP
• To discard effects of antecedent position
  (subject vs object position).
• Intersentential anaphora (works identically to
  intrasentential anaphora, Alonso-Ovalle et al
  2002).

13
12. Hypotheses

• If representational account is correct, then
  learners (all levels) natives
• since L1 Greek L2 Spa.
• If processing account is correct, then learners ?
  natives
• Residual deficits expected even at very advanced
  levels

14
13. Subjects

• Spa natives, n12
• Learners L1 Greek - L2 Spa
• University of Wisconsin Placement Test

N Proficiency range Proficiency mean
Interm 22 60-85 77
Low adv 32 96-91 89
Upper adv 31 93-100 95
15
14. Stimuli

• Similar to previous examples (contrastive focus,
  topic).
• Paired acceptability judgement, e.g.
• Mi compañera María siempre saca buenas notas en
  los exámenes, por lo que
• (a) los profesores dicen que estudia mucho.
  -2 -1 0 1 2
• (b) los profesores dicen que ella estudia mucho.
  -2 -1 0 1 2
• Design
• 6 topic, 6 focus, 12 distracters
• Two versions of test, randomised.
• Overt pronoun in sentence (a) 50 of the time
  (the same for null).
• Vocabulary taken from beginners textbook.

16
15. Result 1 Contrastive Focus condition

• CONCLUSION
• All learners obey PAS (overtgtnull)
• Between group differences (lower levels) ?
  stregth of PAS develops with proficiency
• Upp-adv group show native-like behaviourbut is
  this so? (see next slide).
• SUMMARY
• Overt (contr focus)native-like (upper-advanced).

• WITHIN-GROUP ANALYSIS
• ALL learners discriminate as natives do,
  preferring acceptable OVERT to unacceptable NULL.
• Discrimination intensity increases with
  proficiency towards the native norm.
• BETWEEN GROUP ANALYSIS
• OVERT interm?natives NULL upp-advancednative
  s
• low-advancednatives low-advancednatives
• upper-advancednatives interm?natives

17
16. Result 2 Topic condition

• CONCLUSION
• Learners relaxation of PAS overt may select
  subject in Spec,IP ? violation of PAS and AMP.
• Natives slightly mild relaxation of PAS (very
  weak negative ratingsthey should be stronger).
  See Alonso-Ovalle et al 2002.
• SUMMARY
• Null pronouns (topic) native-like.
• Overt pronouns RESIDUAL deficits, they dont
  consider it as redundant (advanced groups).

• WITHIN-GROUP ANALYSIS
• Except intermediates, all groups prefer nul to
  overt, similarly to natives. BUT
• BETWEEN GROUP ANALYSIS
• OVERT upp-advanced?natives NULL
  upp-advancednatives
• low-advanced?natives low-advancednatives
• interm?natives interm?natives

18
17. Conclusion 1

• ?Representational deficits
• In upper-advanced learners, overt pronoun is
  overspecified
• BUT unexpected, since L1 Greek L2 Spa
• pronominal inventory in terms of discursive
  features Contrastive Focus / Topic encoded in
  overt / null
• Kras (2006) results in the same line L1 Croat
  L2 Ital
• Alternative explanation? Processing deficit

19
18. Conclusion 2

• ?Processing deficit
• Sorace (2005, 2006), Sorace Filiaci (2006),
  based on Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen
  Felser 2006).
• Upper-adv learners
• Deficits, relaxed PAS for overt (if redundant)
• Overt may select antecedent in Spec,IP when no
  ambiguity ? overt residually encodes topic
• Native-like behaviour, strict PAS for null and
  overt (if ambiguous)
• Null selects antecedent in Spec,IP ? null
  encodes topic
• Overt selects antecedent in Spec,IP if ambiguity
  ? overt encodes contrastive focus
• Deficits are just RESIDUAL, as expected,
  otherwise native-like behaviour at very adv
  levels.
• Results seem to initially support Sorace and
  associates proposal deficits with overt. ---
  tentative (but provisional) explanation.

20
19. Conclusion 3

• Syntax-before-Discourse phenomenon
• Deficits at the syntax-discourse interface
  (vulnerability)
• Representational deficits (likely)
• Processing deficits (more likely)
• Further questions
• Why overextension of null as well?
  (bidirectionality has been also attested in L2
  Spa)
• Why deficits affect processor rather than
  representations? Perhaps both, i.e.,
  representations are faulty hence processor cannot
  perform effectively?
• Preliminary evidence that discursive properties
  (like Focus) coulb be in place before their
  syntactic properties (WOSLAC research group at
  Univ Autónoma Madrid).
• Just the tip of the iceberg More research
  needed!!!

21

• Reference List
• Al-Kasey, T., Pérez-Leroux, A.-T., 1998. Second
  language acquisition of Spanish null subjects.
  In Flynn, S., Matohardjono, G., O'Neil, W.
  (eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language
  Acquisition, 161-185. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence
  Erlbaum.
• Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier,
  L., Clifton, C., 2002. Null vs. overt pronouns
  and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish.
  Journal of Italian Linguistics 14, 151-169.
• Belletti, A., Leonini, C., 2004. Subject
  inversion in L2 Italian. In Foster-Cohen, S.,
  Sharwood Smith, M., Sorace, A., Mitsuhiko, O.
  (eds.), EUROSLA yearbook Volume 4, 95-118.
  Amsterdam John Benjamins.
• Bini, M., La adqusición del italiano más allá
  de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro
  pro-drop. In Liceras, J. (ed.), La lingüística y
  el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, 126-193.
  Ottawa Doverhouse.
• Camacho, J., 1999. From SOV to SVO the grammar
  of interlanguage word order. Second Language
  Research 15, 115-132.
• Carminati, M.N., 2002. The processing of Italian
  subject pronouns. PhD thesis University of
  Massachussetts at Amherst.
• Carminati, M.N., 2005. Processing reflexes of teh
  feature hierarchy (PersongtNumbergtGender) and
  implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115.
• Chien, Y.-C., Wexler, K., 1990. Children's
  knowledge of locality conditions in binding as
  evidence for the modularity of syntax and
  pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225-295.
• Clahsen, H., Felser, C., 2006. Grammatical
  processing in language learners. Applied
  Pscholinguistics 27, 3-42.
• Fernández-Soriano, O. Strong pronouns in
  null-subject languages and the Avoid Pronoun
  Principle. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11,
  228-239. 1989.
• Fernández-Soriano, O., 1993. La visión
  paramétrica del lenguaje más sobre los sujetos y
  objetos nulos. In Liceras, J.M. (ed.), La
  lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no
  nativos Ottawa Dovehouse.
• Fernández Soriano, O., 1999. El pronombre
  personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres
  átonos y tónicos. In Demonte, V., Bosque, I.
  (eds.), 1209-1273. Madrid Espasa-Calpe.
• Fernández-Soriano, O., 1993. Sobre el orden de
  palabras en español. Cuadernos de Filología
  Hispánica 11, 113-151.
• Geber, D., 2006. Processing subject pronouns in
  relation to non-canonical (Quirky) constructions.
  Ottawa Papers in Linguistics 34, 47-61.
• Grimshaw, J., Samek-Lodovici, V., 1998. Optimal
  subjects and subject universals. In Barbosa, P.,
  Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., Psetsky, D.
  (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and
  competition in syntax, 193-219. Cambridge, MASS
  MIT Press.
• Grinstead, J., 2004. Subjects and interface delay
  in child Spanish and Catalan. Language 80, 40-72.
• Grodzinsky, Y., Reinhart, T., 1993. The
  innateness of binding and correference.
  Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69-101.
• Helland, C., 2004. Attrition and syntactic
  subjects in Catalan. Paper presented at The
  Romance Turn, Universidad Nacional de Educación a
  Distancia (Madrid, September).

22

• THANK YOU!