Parallels between L1- and L2-acquisition of determiners: the role of partitivity

1. Parallels between L1- and L2-acquisition of determiners: the role of partitivity Heejeong Ko1 ,Tania Ionin2, and Ken Wexler1,3 1Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, 2Department of Linguistics, USC, 3Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT 1 6 9 Experiment: Methods Stimuli: Partitivity & Specificity • Goals of the Study • To identify semantic/pragmatic factors contributing to L2-English article choice - in particular, to examinethe roles of partitivity,specificity, and definiteness. • To investigate parallelisms between L1 and L2 acquisition of article semantics- in particular, the role of partitivity in L1 and L2 article usage. • Subjects. 20 intermediate and advanced adult L1-Korean learners of English [proficiency measured by theMichigan test]. • Task.Forced Choice Test. Subjects were asked to choose an article among a, the, and nothing in a given English context. • Stimuli.80 dialogues in English [10 contexts target a, 10 contexts target the, 4 tokens per context type]. We report the data from 10 indefinite contexts testing: • Partitivity*Scope (3*2 design, 6 contexts, 4 tokens each) • Partitivity*Specificity (2*2 design, 4 contexts, 4 tokens each) • Research Questions. • Can we replicate the effect of specificity in L2-English article choice reported in Ionin (2003), Ionin, Ko, and Wexler (to appear) with anew group of L1-Korean subjects? • If so, does partitivity interact with specificity? If it does, how? • 1. [+Partitive, +Specific] • Molly: So what did your guest Mr. Svenson do over the weekend?Jamie: Well, he went to see our local softball team play. He had a good time. Afterwards, he met (a, the, --) player – she was very nice and friendly. And she played really well! • 2. [+Partitive, -Specific] • Ben: I just saw Tom, and he looked really excited. Do you know why?Melissa: Yes – he was able to see the Boston Red Sox team while they were practicing. And he is a huge fan! He even got a signature from (a, the, --) player –I have no idea which one. Tom was really excited! • 3. [-Partitive, +Specific] • Older sister:So how is your daughter doing in her first semester of college?Younger sister: She likes college a lot. Her classes are very interesting, and she has good friends.Older sister: That’s wonderful. Does she have friends yet?Younger sister:Yes, I think so! Last Saturday, she had dinner with (a, the, --) boy from her dormitory. He was very nice, and they had a good time. She’ll see him again this week-end. • 4. [-Partitive, -Specific] • Alice: Where’s Kendra? I really need to talk to her.Kendra’s roommate: She is in the garden.Alice: What’s she doing there?Kendra’s roommate: She is reading (a, the,--) book – I have no idea what it is, but Kendra has been in the garden for hours! • [NB. The [+partitive] contexts in the partitive*specificity stimuli were all implicit partitive contexts.] 2 7 Studies on Semantics of L2-Articles Stimuli: Partitivity & Scope • Research Questions. • Does partitivity play a role in L2-article choice in the predicted way? • Is partitivity an abstract semantic feature or a morphological feature requiring a plural-marked DP in the previous discourse? Explicit (four boys- a boy) vs. Implicit partitive (orchestra- a musician)? • Does partitivity interact with other semantic properties imposed on DPs such as scope? If so, how? • Wide Scope, Explicit Partitive: • Anne: My roommate Angela decided to get a birthday gift for her mother. So she went to a jewelry store. She didn’t have enough money. But she found a few things that were not very expensive: three bracelets and four rings. She could only buy one of these items.Rose: So what did she buy, in the end?Anne: She bought (a, the, --) bracelet. Tomorrow is her mother’s birthday. She can’t wait to see her mother’s happy face. • Wide Scope, ImplicitPartitive: • Reporter 1: Did you get your first assignment done? My first assignment was to do an interview at the central police station in Manhattan. I was excited about it. Reporter 2: Who did you interview? I heard that it is difficult to get an interview at the police station.Reporter 1: It was not a big problem for me! My mom has lived here for a long time, and she knows everybody! So she introduced me to (a, the, --) police officer. She is really proud of me being a reporter! • Wide Scope, Non-Partitive: • Elissa: How is your nephew Joey doing? He is such a nice boy!Robert: Well, he was a bit depressed the last few days. So, his parents decided to get him a pet. So last week, he went to our local pet shop. • Elissa: Oh, so did he buy some animal there?Robert: No, he did not like the puppies in the pet shop, in fact. But then he was walking home, and he found (a, the, --) kitten in the street! So now he has a new pet after all! • Narrow Scope, ExplicitPartitive: • Elissa: How is your niece Amy doing? Robert: Great! Her parents finally allowed her to get a pet at the local pet shop. Amy knows that this pet shop has five puppies and six kittens. Elissa: Oh, so which one of these animals is she going to buy?Robert: She has not quite decided yet. But she definitely wants to buy (a, the, --) puppy. You see, she doesn’t like cats very much! She is going to the pet shop on Friday. • 5.Narrow Scope, Implicit Partitive: • Jane: Hi, how are you? I heard that your brother Jason is going to the airport tomorrow morning. Is he going somewhere? Mary: Oh, no! Jason will go there to meet the Boston Celtics team. The team will be leaving Boston on the 7AM flight. Jason wants to get the autograph of (a, the, --) player. Any player would do – Jason has never met the team before, and this would make him really happy! • Narrow Scope, Non-Partitive: • Susan: How are you Nancy? What are you thinking about? You look so happy. • Nancy: Well, I have to solve two math problems and write three essays. Susan: Does it make you happy? I don’t understand you! Nancy: Oh! No!! But I have to finish this homework quickly. My mother decided to get me (a, the, --) pet! She promised she’ll do that if I finish homework! I’m really excited. • Article misuse in L2-English article choice:overuse of ‘the’ with indefinites, overuse of ‘a’ with definites (seeHuebner 1983; Master 1987; Parrish 1987; Thomas 1989; Kaneko 1996; Leung 2001; Ionin 2003; Ionin, Ko, and Wexler, to appear, among others). • L2-English article errors are not random; L2-English article choice is constrained by the universal semantic features of definiteness and specificity as speaker intent to refer(Ionin 2003; Ionin, Ko, and Wexler, to appear). • Informal definitions: • Definiteness: If a DP of the form [D NP] is [+definite], the speaker and the hearer presuppose the existence of a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP (for formal definitions, see Heim 1991). • Specificity:If a DP is the form [D NP] is [+specific], the speaker intends to refer to a unique individual in the set denoted by the NP, and considers this individual to possess some noteworthy property (based on Fodor and Sag 1982; for formal definition, see Ionin 2003). • L2-errors:overuse of the is tied to [+specific] feature, and overuse of a, to [-specific] feature (Ionin 2003; Ionin, Ko, and Wexler, to appear) • (1)a. [+specific] indefinite => found the overuse in L2 English • My boss is meeting with a student – and he is my best friend! • b. [-specific] indefinite => found correct a use in L2 English • My boss is meeting with a student - but I have no idea who it is. • (2)a. [+specific] definite => found correct the use in L2 English • I want to talk to the winner of this race – she is my best friend.b. [-specific] definite =>found a overuse in L2 English • I want to talk to the winner of this race – whoever that is. 10 Results: Overuse of the with partitive DPs 3 NEW Research Questions • Are definiteness and specificity the only semantic factors in UG that contribute to L2-English article choice? • If multiple semantic factors affect L2-article choice, do these factors interact? • Can errors in L2 article choice be traced to the same semantic factors working in L1 acquisition of articles? 4 Maximality Trouble in L1-acquisition • Repeated Measures ANOVAs: • Significant Main Effects of Partitivity and Specificity: • -Significantly more use of the in [+Partitive] contexts than in [-Partitive] contexts [F(1,16)= 10.50,***p=.005]. • -Significantly more use of the in[+Specific] contexts than in [-Specific] contexts [F(1,16)= 12.72, ***p=.003]. • -No significant interactions between Partitivity and Specificity[F(1,16)=.17, p=.684]. • No significant effect of proficiency [F(1,16)=3.61, p=.223]. • Classic Puzzle.Children overuse the with indefinite DPs if a DP is a member of a set introduced by previous discourse (Warden 1973; Maratsos 1974, 1976; Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Schafer and de Villiers 2000, among others). • e.g. Adult: Once there was a lady. She had lots of girls and boys. One of them started laughing and giggling. Who was laughing and giggling like that? • Child: the boy. (Maratsos 1974, 1976) • Egocentric response? If there is a single object in the focus of attention of the child, the is used, regardless of whether this particular object is known to the listener (Maratsos 1976; cf. Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Heim 2003 for discussion of the problems with this approach). • Alternative. Maximality Trouble(Wexler 2003). Children have the presupposition of existence for [the NP], but lack the presupposition of “uniqueness” for [the NP]: • For children, [the x] P expresses that proposition P which is: • -true at an index i, if there is an x at i, and it is P at i • -false at an index i, if there is an x at i, and there is no x such that x is P at i. • -truth-valueless at an index i, if there is no x at i. • [a x] P expresses that proposition P which is: • -true if there is at least one individual which is both x and P. • -false otherwise. 8 Results: Overuse of the with partitive DPs NB. 1) Planned comparisons show that the difference between partitives and non-partitives in use of the is significant in the non-specific contexts, but not in the specific contexts, which may indicate some interaction between partitivity and specificity that is not captured by the Omnibus-F test. 2) Additional 20 L1-Korean L2-English speakers took a different version of the test, in which the choice of target article was not given, and learners had to fill in the blank with the right article. The results of this test also yielded a strong effect of partitivity. However, there was no effect of specificity. We leave the interpretation of these puzzling results for further investigation 11 Discussion • New Findings. • Partitivity contributes to overuse of the with indefinites in L2-English, independent of scope and specificity. • Partitivity is a semantic property: no difference between explicit and implicit partitive DPs in L2-article errors. • Maximality Trouble both in L2 and in L1 acquisition. • Article usage of L2-learners is not random: almost no mistakes with indefinites in non-specific, non-partitive contexts. • Open Questions. • Are there exact parallelsbetween acquisition of L2-articles and L1-articles? (Does implicit partitivity also trigger overuse of the in L1-acquisition of articles?) • Is the effect of partitivity universal in L2-acquisition of articles? Or is it specific to L1-Korean learners of English? • What underlies the parallelism between L1 and L2-errors of article usage? UG-access? • Statistical Analyses: Repeated Measures ANOVAs. • Omnibus F. Main effect of partitivity [F(2,32)=13.397, ***p<.000]. No significant interaction between Partitivity and Scope [F(2,32)=.137, p=.872].No significant effect of proficiency [F (1,16)=3.643, p=.074]. • Planned Comparisons.Significantly more use of the in partitive contexts than in non-partitive contexts: -explicit partitive vs. non-partitive [F(1,16) =23.2,***p<.000] -implicit partitive vs. non-partitive [F(1,16) =17.6,***p=.001]-no significant difference between explicit and implicit partitive contexts in use of the [F (1,16) = .588, p=.454]. 5 Maximality Trouble in L2-acquisition • Hypothesis. • Due to insufficient input, L2-learners entertain an incorrect lexical entry for the. • Overuse of the in L2-English is traced to the lack of Maximality (or uniqueness) presupposition, as argued for the overusein child L1-English (Wexler 2003). • Predictions. • Systematic overuse of the with indefinites in the context where a DP is associated with a previously mentioned set, namely [+partitive]. • If a DP is [+partitive], it denotes an individual that is a member of a set introduced by previous discourse (cf. Enç 1991). • No overuse of the with indefinitesin [-partitive] contexts (except where other factors (e.g. specificity) contribute to overuse of the). Selected References Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25. Fodor, J. and I. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398. Heim, I. 1991. Articles and definiteness. Published in German as “Artikel und Definitheit,” in A. v. Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter. Heim, I. 2003. Semantics and pragmatics of article choice: A brief introduction.Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, MIT, March 2003. Ionin, T. 2003. Article semantics in second language acquisition. PhD thesis, MIT. Ionin, T., H. Ko, & K. Wexler. to appear. Article semantics in L2-acquisition: the role of specificity, Language Acquisition 12. Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1979. A functional approach to child language. Cambridge, CUP. Maratsos, M. P. 1976. The Use of Definite and Indefinite Reference in Young Children. Cambridge, CUP. Schafer, R. and J. de Villiers. 2000. Imagining articles: What a and the can tell us about the emergence of DP. S. C. Howell et al. (eds.), BUCLD 24 Proceedings. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Wexler, K. 2003. Maximal trouble. Paper presented at CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, MIT. • NB. We found a significant main effect of Scope for the overuse [F(1,16) = 5.950, *p=.027], but no main effect of Scope for a use [F(1,16)=.022, p=.883]. This is potentially due to the fact that the omission rate in the narrow scope contexts (8%) was significantly higher than the omission rate in the wide scope contexts (2%) [F(1,16)=6.253, *p=.024]. We leave the interpretation of the results concerning article omission in L2-English for further investigation.