1 / 15

The lexicon-syntax interface and the syntax-discourse interface:

The lexicon-syntax interface and the syntax-discourse interface: native-like and optional knowledge in advanced L2 Spanish Cristóbal Lozano Universidad Autónoma de Madrid clozan2@yahoo.com The Romance Turn 2004. Background.

lawrence-emerson
Download Presentation

The lexicon-syntax interface and the syntax-discourse interface:

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. The lexicon-syntax interface and the syntax-discourse interface: native-like and optional knowledge in advanced L2 Spanish Cristóbal Lozano Universidad Autónoma de Madrid clozan2@yahoo.com The Romance Turn 2004

  2. Background • Emerging pattern in advanced L2 acquisition of syntactic properties vs. discursive props. • Syntax vs. discourse: Pronominal distribution (pro-drop parameter) in L2 Spa: • Formal/syntactic props acquired early: null expletives first, then null referentials  convergence: (Al-Kasey & Pérez-Leroux, 1998; Liceras, 1989; Phinney, 1987) • Syntactic licensing of pro AND syntactic contraints on pro (OPC) acquired early  convergence • BUT pragmatic conditions licensing pro persistently problematic  divergence. (Liceras & Díaz, 1999; Pérez-Leroux et al. 1999; Pérez-Leroux & Glass, 1997, 1999; Sauter, 2003) • Similar findings in: • Bilingual L1 attrition of overt and null pronouns:Montrul, 2004; Satterfield, 2003; Sorace, 2004; Tsimpli et al., in press 2004. • L1 attrition: Tsimpli, 2001 • L1 acquisition of English pronouns: Chien & Wexler, 1990; Grodzinsky & Reinhart, 1993; Serratrice, 2004 •  formal syntactic constraints in place before discursive ones (advanced levels). converge with formal/syntactic props:  native-like knowledge. diverge with discursive props like topic and focus (syntax-discourse interface):  divergent / optional knowledge.

  3. Aim • If emerging view is correct, will it be observed with the second property of pro-drop parameter: “subject inversion”? • “Subject inversion” is constrained: • Syntactically (Unaccusative Hypothesis) at lexicon-syntax interface • Discursively (TP-internal presentational Focus Phrase) at syntax-discourse interface

  4. SV/VS alternations • Subtle learnability problem for learners of L2 Spanish: • Do SV / VS alternate freely? (1) María gritó (SV) / Gritó María (VS) ‘Maria shouted’ ‘Shouted Maria’ (2) María llegó (SV) / Llegó María (VS) ‘Maria arrived’ ‘Arrived Maria’ • Alternations constrained formally (Unaccusative Hypothesis) and discursively (presentational focus).

  5. Syntax: Unaccusative Hypothesis Principle of UG: UTAH Parameter: pro in Spec,TP Greek: like Spa. English: strictly SV (no surface syntactic effects)

  6. A: ¿Quién gritó? ‘Who sho uted?’ B: Gritó María ‘Shouted Maria’ Syntax-discourse: presentational focus Greek & Eng: pres focus in situ: SV(pres. focus subject checked in Spec,TP)

  7. Summary of word order Unfocused contexts: Focused contexts: “What happened?” “Who shouted/arrived?” Unergatives SV VS María gritó Gritó María+Foc ‘Maria shouted’ ‘Shouted Maria’ Unaccusatives VS VS Llegó María Llegó María+Foc ‘Arrived Maria’ ‘Arrived Maria’

  8. Previous L2 findings • Syntax (Unacc. Hypothesis): • English-speaking learners of Spanish are sensitive to the syntactic effects of the Unacc. Hypothesis from early stages of development: SV with unergatives but VS with unaccusatives (De Miguel, 1993; Hertel, 2000, 2003; Hertel & Pérez-Leroux, 1999). • Discourse: under-researched area: • Hertel (2003): presentationally focused subjects in final position are acquired late in L2 Spa. Same finding for L2 Italian (Belletti & Leonini, 2004). • Ocampo (1990) and Camacho (1999): L2 Spa acquisition of distinct word orders to mark focus is acquired late or perhaps never acquired in native-like fashion.

  9. Method • Instrument: • Contextualised acceptability judgement test (Hertel, 2000) Translation

  10. Results: unfocused contexts(Unaccusative Hypothesis) ¿Qué pasó? “What happened?” Unergatives (SV) Unaccusatives (VS) sig sig sig sig sig sig Convergence with natives (native-like knowledge)

  11. Results: focused contexts(Presentational focus at syntax-discourse interface) ¿Quién gritó / llegó? “Who shouted / arrived?” Unergatives (VS) Unaccusatives (VS) sig n.s. n.s. sig n.s. n.s. (just) Divergence with natives (subtype: optionality)

  12. Conclusion  Sorace (2000c; 2004), Tsimpli et al (in press), Tsimpli (2001): [-interpretable] vs. [+interpretable] features Less vulnerable to attrition Highly vulnerable to attrition Convergent (native-like) Divergent (e.g., optionality) Uninterpretable [D] and phi features on T licensing postverbal subjects at syntax Interpretable [Focus] feature at syntax-discourse syntax discourse

  13. Thank you !

  14. Native non-native Native non-native

More Related