1 / 52

Interlanguage Syntax

Interlanguage Syntax. Based on Second Language Syntax by Roger Hawkins & Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar by White Presenter: Shu-ing Shyu ( 徐淑瑛 ) Acknowledgements: 李家慧 , 邵雅琪 , 謝寶玉 , 康郁敏 , 廖吟倫. Introduction. How people acquire the syntax of L2s: Two topics:

kinsey
Download Presentation

Interlanguage Syntax

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interlanguage Syntax Based on Second Language Syntax by Roger Hawkins & Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar by White Presenter: Shu-ing Shyu (徐淑瑛) Acknowledgements: 李家慧,邵雅琪,謝寶玉,康郁敏,廖吟倫

  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) • Sheoffered 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 :child’s 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 > possessive ‘s & 3rd sg. present -s • Dulay & Burt (1974): • present progressive & article a/the,contractible copula be > possessive ‘s & 3rd sg. present -s • Bailey et al. (1974) : • present progressive & contractible copula be, plural –s > possessive ‘s & 3rd singular present -s

  19. Acquisition of Verbal Inflectional Morphology • Andersen (1978) • V-related morphemes: • copula> aspect (±progressive: be V-ing) > tense (±past) >S-V agreement (±3rd P sing.) • (omitting: have, V-en, and ø article) • N-related morphemes: • the > a/ plural–s > 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/She’s 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. (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 she’s married? B: Have a baby/ Have  babies. (7) A: What does she want to do when she’s 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.

  26. 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)

  27. Parrish (1987)

  28. 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%

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. & 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”

  32. 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

  33. 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 betweenda 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]

  34. Two studies of the second language acquisition of English articles • Prrish’s and Huebner’s 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 > a/ plural–s > possessive ‘s

  35. 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

  36. The structure of English determiner phrases • Abney (1987) • John refuses to leave • John’s refusal to leave • Possessive ‘s is a morpheme realizing the category determiner, or D

  37. The structure of English determiner phrases • Abney’s 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

  38. 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]]

  39. The old man’s friend The friend of the old man

  40. It’s assumed that ‘s assigns genitive Case to its specifier so DP raise to specifier of the topmost DP to receive Case.

  41. (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-OPrelation  Spec-Head relation Grammar-building in the SLA of DPs (Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987), & Huebner (1985))

  42. 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 OPrelation  Spec-Head non-local relation ( (L1 influence) Grammar-building in the SLA of DPs (Andersen (1978), Parrish (1987), & Huebner (1985))

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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.

  46. 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

More Related