Incomplete Acquisition: The Burden of Aspectual Morphology

1. Incomplete Acquisition: The Burden of Aspectual Morphology Anna Mikhaylova University of South Carolina 4th Heritage Language Research Institute University of Hawai’i, Manoa June 24, 2010

2. L1 L2 HL Language Acquisition Continuum • both L2 and HL acquisition are cases of potentially incomplete L 1 acquisition (Polinsky 1997; Montrul 2002) • HOWEVER, the two groups may converge in some linguistic behaviors and differ in others

3. Research Question Do HLspeakers have advantage over L2 learners of the same proficiency in their knowledge of Russian Aspect?

4. Features of Heritage Grammars In the worst case scenario, problems across the board… • DISCOURSE PRAGMATICS (Kagan 2006; Polinsky 2007; Dubinina 2010) • LEXICON (Polinsky 2007, Montrul 2009) • MORPHO-SYNTAX • gender agreement (Montrul, Foote, & Perpiñán 2008; Polinsky 2006) • case/number marking(Polinsky 2010) • differential object marking (Montrul & Bowles 2008) • tense/aspect/mood (Montrul 2002, 2007; Pereltsvaig 2004; Polinsky 1997, 2008)

5. Features of Heritage Grammars Polinsky (2009) “Heritage speakers don’t sweat the small stuff and pay dearly for that: they have a relatively poor control of morphology, which cascades and escalates into a series of greater apparent deficits”

6. Lexicalization of HL Aspect Polinsky (2008): Loss of aspectual pairs in Russian HL • one form is retained for both meanings On pisalpisjmo orOn napisalpisjmo He write.IMPF letter He write.PERF letter He was writing a letter He wrote a letter

7. Lexicalization of HL Aspect HL:Polinsky (2008); Pereltsvaig (2004) • LowproficiencyHL speakers fail to use “perfective” prefixes and “imperfective” suffixes to form aspectual pairs, which are believed to reflect a contrast in grammatical aspect. • Low proficiency HL speakers retain one form for both Imperfective and Perfective meanings loss of morphology leads to representational deficit in HL speakers

8. Problems in L2 Aspect L2 : Slabakova (2005); Nossalik (2008) • Intermediate & advancedL2 learners know syntax and semantics of aspect marking but have trouble mapping it to correct morphological form. morphology is the problem for L2 learners

9. Aspect – clarification of terms Perfective/Imperfective interpretation is compositional: • LEXICAL ASPECT (situation aspect/ VP aspect/ Aktionsart) • property of predicates • Vendler’s types of predicates • TELICITY • GRAMMATICAL ASPECT (viewpoint aspect / IP aspect, sentential aspect) • property of whole sentences • BOUNDEDNESS • telicity & boundedness interact

10. Semantics of Aspect TELICITY - encodes presence/absence of an inherent endpoint in predicates • language-specific ways of marking differ! “Hewrote books/fiction.” [-telic] “Hewrote a book/that letter.” [+telic]

11. Types of Predicates ACTIVITY => [αtelic] in the lexicon ‘to write music’ non-quantized object makes the predicate [- telic] ACCOMPLISHMENT [αtelic] in the lexicon ‘to write a song/ that music’  quantized object makes the predicate [+ telic] • the telicity value of [αtelic] verbs can be calculated via different language-specific mechanisms: • Object-marking (English direct objects) • Verb-marking (Russian derivational prefixes) STATE => [- telic] in the lexicon ‘to love music’ ACHIEVEMENT => [+ telic] in the lexicon ‘to recognize a tune’

12. Semantics of Aspect cont. BOUNDEDNESS indicates that the event described by the whole sentence has reached its endpoint. “He wrote a book.”[+telic, +bounded] “He was writing a book.”[+telic, -bounded] The boundedness value is calculated relying on inflectional morphology • Verb-marking (English -ing) • Verb-marking (Russian suffixes)  Calculation of telicity is crucial to and precedes the calculation of boundedness!

13. Parametric Differences • In English, • telicity is marked on the object • (cardinal object telic interpretation) • boundedness is marked by verbal morphology • In Russian, • both aspectual features are overtly marked on the verb, but by different morphemes: • telicity by prefixes • boundedness by suffixes

14. Research Question Does telicity or boundedness present a greater difficulty for incomplete acquirers?

15. Morphology and Aspectual Pairs

16. Morphological mechanisms At least 18 PERFECTIVIZING PREFIXES: v-(vo), vz- (vs, vzo), vy-, do-, za-, iz-(is, izo), na-, nad-(nado), o- (ob ,obo), ot-(oto), pere-, po-, pod-(podo), pri-, pro-, raz-(ras, razo), s- (so),&u- • pisatj vsnapisatjvsperepisatj vsETC. to.write.IMPF to.write.PERF to.rewrite.PERF !!! Prefixation results in perfective interpretation only if the verb does not undergo further suffixation. 1 productive IMPERFECTIVIZING SUFFIX (with allomorphs):-(y)va- • vstatjvsvstavatj to.get.up.PERF to.get.up.IMPF !!! Suffixation consistently leads to imperfective interpretation !!! Imperfective subsumes ongoing & habitual interpretations

17. What Needs to be Learned • prefixed verbs are [+telic ] • 18+ polysemantic prefixes • each individual verb with its subset of prefixes • suffixed verbs are [ -bounded ] • suffixed verbs are [+telic ] • -(y)va-can attach only to telic verbs • which verbs are telic

18. Research Question Which morphological reflexes (prefixation, suffixation, or both) pose a greater difficulty?

19. Research Questions • Do HL speakers have advantage over L2 learners in their aspectual knowledge? • Does telicity or boundedness present a greater difficulty for incomplete acquirers? • Which morphological reflexes (prefixation, suffixation, or both) pose a greater difficulty?

20. Task Similar to Slabakova (2005): SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION– testing implicit knowledge • ability to interpret the aspectual forms and arrive at correct semantic entailments relying solely on verbal morphology Which of the sentences below is a logical continuation of the initial sentence? Valja pročitala (etot) detektiv… Valya read.PAST.PERF (this) detective.story Valya read (this) detective story… • …and she didn’t like the ending. • … and she wanted to find out the ending. • ….both variants are possible

21. Condition 1 Pairs based on TELICITY activity-accomplishment verbs • [α telic] in the lexicon => telicity AND boundedness to calculate • BARE (non-affixed) [-telic, -bounded] activity = Imperf. interpretation On pisal pisjmo. ‘He was writing a letter.’ • *PREFIXED [+telic,+bounded] accomplishment = Perf. interpretation On dopisal pisjmo. ‘He wrote/finished a letter.’

22. Condition 2 Pairs based on BOUNDEDNESS accomplishment verbs • [α telic] in the lexicon => telicity AND boundedness to calculate • *PREFIXED [+telic,+bounded] accomplishment = Perf. interpretation On dopisal pisjmo. ‘He wrote/finished a letter.’ • PREFIXED & SUFFIXEDtelic/unbounded accomplishment = Imperf. On dopisyval pisjmo. ‘He was finishing writing a letter.’

23. Condition 3 Pairs based on BOUNDEDNESS achievement verbs • [+telic] in the lexicon => only boundedness to calculate • BARE(non-affixed) telic/bounded achievement = Perf. Interpretation On zakazal obed. ‘He ordered dinner.’ • SUFFIXED telic/unbounded achievement = Imperf. interpretation On zakazyval obed. ‘He was ordering dinner.’

24. Materials • 30 target items • 3 conditions (10 items per condition) • 30 fillers • verbs from the textbook Golosa, Volumes 1-2 • suffixation controlled for phonological transparency • activity-accomplishment verbs that allow both prefixation and suffixation • PROFICIENCY MEASURE - Slabakova’s (2005) cloze test • LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

25. Participants • L1 (control group) - 30 monolingual native speakers of Russian, mean age 21( university studentsin Ryazan, Russia) • HL - 22 high proficiency heritage speakers of Russian, English dominant, mean age 22 • L2 – 13 high proficiency foreign language learners of Russian, English dominant, mean age 30 The vast majority of the participants for both test groups were students of U of South Carolina, Brandeis University, College of Charleston, SUNY at Albany, and Harvard University

26. Results: HIGH PROFICIENCYProficiency vs Aspect

27. Results: HIGH PROFICIENCYgroup differences by condition totals morphology challenge

28. Results: HIGH PROFICIENCY Condition differences by groupmorphology disadvantage for L2

29. Results: HIGH PROFICIENCY a closer look by morphological pattern[+telic,+bounded] advantage for L1, but not HL or L2

30. Zooming in: unaffixed verbs[+telic, +bounded] advantageno significant differences between groups

31. Zooming in: affixed verbs[+telic, +bounded] advantage

32. Zooming in: achievement verbs[+telic, +bounded] advantage for allovertmorphology disadvantage for L2

33. Zooming in: activity-accomplishments[+telic, +bounded] advantage only for L1overtmorphology disadvantage for L2

34. Results • Do HL speakers have advantage over L2 learners in their aspectual knowledge? • YES, in some contrasts • Does telicity or boundedness present a greater difficulty for incomplete acquirers? • BOUNDEDNESS, especially for L2 • Which morphological reflexes (prefixation, suffixation, or both) pose a greater difficulty? • PREFIXATION+SUFFIXATION, especially for L2

35. What about non-high proficiency HL and L2 learners? • Mid HL - 5 heritage speakers, mean age 22 Proficiency score lower than L1 range • Mid L2 – 33 foreign language learners, mean age 22 Proficiency score within Mid HL range • Low L2 – 10 foreign language learners , mean age 22 Proficiency score lower than Mid HL range

36. What about non-high proficiency HL and L2 learners?

37. 100 80 60 40 20 0 HL mid L2 mid L2 low 60 52 53 COND#1 Telicity- activity/accompl. 36 37 26 COND#2 Boundedness - accompl. 60 58 52 COND#3 Boundedness - achievem. Results: NON-HIGH proficiency Condition #2 disadvantage remains for all

38. Results: NON-HIGH proficiency a closer look by morphological patternHL are different from L2

39. Results: NON-HIGH proficiency HLadvantage in [+telic, +bounded] is only partial !!! HL disadvantage in PREF-SUFF

40. Discussion • [+telic/+bounded] prefixed verbs are least ambiguous • [-bounded] bare and suffixed verbs subsume habitual and ongoing meanings • ACTIVITY-ACCOMPLISHMENT • verbs are structurally more complex than achievements(Slabakova 2001, 2005) • prefixed-suffixed accomplishment verbs are less frequent than other verbs • POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES IN PROCESSING COSTS

41. Discussion • Parallel with L2 acquisition research (Bardovi-Harlig, 2005) • Perfective achievement verbs in several languages are acquired earliest • Imperfective is on average acquired later • Parallel with L1 acquisition of Russian aspectual morphology (Polinsky, 2007): • verbs with distinct prefixes are acquired early; • imperfectivizing suffixes (e.g., -yva-) are acquired later and productive -yva- is over-marked up until age 3. (Kazanina, 2005): • Children have trouble processing the Imperfective

42. Conclusion • HL and L2 learners’ high accuracy in the proficiency measure is no guarantee for equally high proficiency in aspectual interpretations • Some aspectual contrasts (boundedness) pose a greater difficulty than others (telicity) • especially in more complex activity-accomplishment verbs • Morphology is the “bottleneck” of L2 acquisition (Slabakova 2008) and perhaps for HL acquisition as well… (Polinsky 2010) • PREFIXED-SUFFIXED forms are the most challenging • There is some advantage in early bilingualism vs late bilingualism, but it is not categorical(Montrul 2008)

43. Implications for pedagogy • To improve aspectual knowledge: • explicit instruction on the morphological mechanisms and the semantic interaction of telicity and boundedness • balancing comprehension and production tasks, especially during initial instruction • encouraging HL-L2 interaction • What about HL vs L2 learners? • Even high proficiency fluent HL learners do not converge with native speakers and can benefit from instruction! • Since HL and L2 learners converge in some but not all ways => individualized instruction, if they are in the same classroom

44. Thank you!

45. Directions for further research • Interpretation and judgment of contrasts that are contextually disambiguated • Comparing with production data • Controlling iterative vs ongoing imperfective • Looking into tense-aspect pragmatics • Testing effects of (explicit) instruction • Comparing with other lexico-grammatical phenomena • Controlling potential forgetters vs. incomplete acquirers

46. Stop-making-sense Task not discussed here the effects of transfer and processing • To test for transfer (in the mechanism of telicity marking), this task manipulates the form of the object: (1) countable and singular; (2) mass or bare plural noun; and modified by overt pronoun or quantifier. the key aspectual contrasts: • Knowledge of (a)telicity of the predicate is tested via compatibility with adverbials like in X time/for X time.  Only telic predicates would be semantically incompatible with the adverbial for X time. • Knowledge of (un)boundedness of the event is tested via compatibility with all X time period type of modifier.  Only bounded events would be semantically incompatible with the adverbial all X time period.

47. Sample Items TELICITY Dva mesjaca Vladimir chital moi politicheskie statji. Dva mesjaca Vladimir chital politicheskie statji. • ‘For 2 months, Vladimir was reading (my) political articles.’ * Dva mesjaca Vladimir prochital politicheskie statji. * Dva mesjaca Vladimir prochital moi politicheskie statji. • ‘For 2 months, Vladimir read.through (my) political articles.’ BOUNDEDNESS Vsjo utro Marina domyvala pol v svoej boljshoj kvartire. • ‘All morning, Marina was finishing.washing the floor in her large apartment.’ *Vsjo utro Marina domyla pol v svoej boljshoj kvartire. • ‘All morning, Marina finished.washing the floor in her large apartment.’

48. Proficiency vs EntailmentsTask

49. Proficiency vs EntailmentsTask cont.

50. Gaps Yet to Bridge • No study comparing L2 and HL Russian • No study looking into both lexical and grammatical aspect • Mainly production for low proficiency HL • Comprehension, interpretation for low-intermediate to high L2 • Hard to tell if HL problems are in performance or competence • Hard to tell if HL have trouble with knowledge of telicity, boundedness, or both • Telicity and boundedness were tested by different methods • L2 and HL speakers were tested by different methods  My study uses the same methodology to compare HL and L2 speakers in their comprehension of both telicity and boundedness.