GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

1. GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic Theory Week 13. L2 morphology v. functional projections

2. Morphology • In L1A, we observe that kids don’t always provide all of the morphology that adults do. • Traditionally, it was assumed that kids are learning the morphology and the syntax and that at some point they got it (say, when they provide correct morphology 90% of the time when it was required).

3. Morphology • A major recent development in the study of how kids come to know the (by now, known to be fabulously complicated, but yet relatively language-independent) system of syntax was in the observation that morphological errors are by no means random. • In particular, in a large number of languages, what seems to happen is that kids produce nonfinite forms of the verb—but along with that comes the syntax associated with non-finiteness.

4. German and L1A CP • So, in German. • When a 2-year-old uses a finite verb, it goes in second position; when a 2-year-old uses a nonfinite verb it remains at the end of the sentence (after the object). C DP IP C+I ate John I — — VP V — DP lunch

5. Functional categories • So, even though kids will sometimes use nonfinite verbs, they know the difference between finite and nonfinite verb and know how the grammar treats each kind. They are using T correctly. They just sometimes pick the wrong (nonfinite) one. • Now, adult L2’ers also drop a lot of morphology, will produce nonfinite forms… • This raises the question (in the general ballpark of “how much is L2A like L1A?”) as to whether second language learners show this effect as well.

6. Functional categories • Rephrasing a bit, what we’re talking about is essentially the structural complexity of the learner’s (L1A/L2A) knowledge (at a given point). • It has been pretty well established by theoretical linguistics that adult native languages are quite complex, containing functional phrases like AgrP, TP and CP, and there is a lot of support for this idea that most if not all parametric differences stem from properties of the abstract functional morphemes (often reflected in surface morphology).

7. Functional categories • Verb movement (if it conforms to the rules of adult native-speaker verb movement, anyway) serves as evidence for this complex functional structure, since the verb moves into a functional head (T, for example). • The evidence we just reviewed suggests very strongly that kids learning German and French produce sentences which comply with the rules of adult syntax (that make reference to this complex functional structure). Kids seem to “know about” the TP and the CP and the rules that pertain thereto.

8. Functional categories • The question we’re about to look at is whether adult second language learners also have this same complex structural knowledge in their IL. Do L2’ers “know about TP” in other words? • Note that if L2’ers can usually produce sentences which are grammatical in the TL but yet don’t “follow the rules” which are associated with that structure (i.e. that only finite verbs move to T), we do not have evidence that their mental representation of these sentences includes the higher functional phrases like TP.

9. Prévost and White (1999, 2000) • Prévost and White (1999, 2000) investigated this very question, and here’s what they found. • Like kids do during L1A, second language learners will sometimes omit, and sometimes provide, inflection (tense, subject agreement) on the verb. • However, it is different from L1A in that lack of finite inflection on the verb does not seem to correlate with being treated syntactically as an infinitive.

10. Prévost and White • Prévost and White try to differentiate two possibilities of what their data might show, given that second language learners sometimes use inflected verbs and sometimes don’t. • Impairment Hypothesis. The learners don’t really (consistently) understand the inflection or how to use it. Their knowledge of inflection is “impaired”. Their trees don’t contain the functional XPs. • Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis.The learners will sometimes pronounce finite verbs in their infinitive form (the verbs act finite, the functional XP’s are there, but the learner couldn’t find the right inflected form in his/her lexicon in time, so s/he used the nonfinite form). The nonfinite form is essentially a default.

11. Prévost and White • Possibility 1 (impairment) suggests basically no correlation between verb movement and inflection. • Possibility 2 (mispronouncing a finite verb by using its nonfinite form) predicts that • When the finite form is pronounced, the verb will definitely be (and act) finite—it will move. • When the nonfinite form is pronounced, it might act finite or nonfinite.

12. Prévost and White • P&W looked at spontaneous speech data from two adults learning L2 French (from Moroccan Arabic, after a year) and two adults learning L2 German (from Spanish and Portuguese, after 3 months). Monthly interviews followed for about 2 years.

13. Prévost and White found… • Almost no finite (inflected) verb forms in non-finite contexts. • When verbs are marked with inflection, they systematically (overwhelmingly) appear before negation (i.e., they move). • Many of nonfinite forms used in finite contexts (used finitely, moved).

14. Prévost and White • P&W’s data supports the hypotheses that: • (These) second language learners know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbs. • They know that finite verbs move, and that nonfinite verbs do not move. • The only real errors they make are essentially lexical retrieval errors (errors of pronunciation), pronouncing verbs which are abstractly finite in their infinitive form. • One question: Why the infinitive? Is it really an unmarked form universally? Does it depend on what the citation form is? Is it due to the language-particular morphology.

15. L2A and L1A • One thing this tells us is that, despite possible appearances to the contrary, second language learners’ interlanguages are quite systematic and complex, and the L2 learners have the same kind of abstract structural knowledge incorporated into their IL that we can argue for in the case of L1 learners.

16. L2A and L1 • We don’t know really to what extent “UG” played a role, based only on this—after all, we know that the L1 had the full structural complexity of a natural language, including the distinction (perhaps abstract) between finite and nonfinite, and including (perhaps abstract) subject agreement, etc. There’s no reason that knowledge of the distinction between finite and nonfinite couldn’t simply carry over (“transfer”) to the IL during L2A.

17. Morphology ≠ syntax • This suggests that morphology is rather distinct from syntax. It is possible to have the syntax right and the morphology wrong. And to some extent, morphology is not provided by UG, must be learned, and moreover must be retrieved. • The view of Distributed Morphology under which morphology is a separate system given the task of pronouncing a syntactic structure (and which allows for the sort of defaults we seem to see) seems well suited to describe this.

18. Morphology ≠ syntax • Various other studies describe a similar dissociation; obligatory subjects, subject case, and verb position are all governed by syntactic features/parameters attributed to functional projections. And while L2’ers seem to get these right, they are inconsistent with the morphology. (See White ch. 6; Lardière, White, Schwartz, Prévost, …)

19. Schwartz (2002) • Last year at the BUCLD, Bonnie Schwartz presented data of this sort looking at the gender agreement and definiteness properties of Dutch DPs, with the aim being to determine whether child L2 acquisition was more like child L1 acquisition or more like adult L2 acquisition. • What she found was that in terms of overgeneralizing morphology (overuse of uninflected adjectives), adult L2’ers did it, but neither child L1’ers nor child L2’er did. But in terms of word order, both kinds of L2’er went through a word order stage not attested in child L1’ers’ development.

20. Schwartz (2002) • Schwartz concluded that • child L2 is like child L1 wrt morphology • child L2 is like adult L2 wrt syntax • Again, a dissociation between morphology and syntax. • Why? Morphology is surface-evident and frequent, why is there such difficulty?

21. thoughts re: Schwartz (2002) • Jeff Lidz brought up the question of whether this might be due not so much to morphology, but to a phonological effect. Either in terms of an input filter (like the French discussion earlier) or in terms of a production constraint. Phonological problems could in many ways mimic morphological problems.

22. thoughts re: Schwartz (2002) • Harald Clahsen brought up an interesting point with respect to processing: there are processing results that indicate that adult L2’ers “need longer” to process incoming data. While I’m not sure exactly what studies he had in mind, taking that as given, perhaps the problem with morphology is that it just “comes too fast.” In the same kind of way that phonological filters might keep morphological marking out of the “input data”, processing constraints might also have this effect.

23.          

24. Language attrition • It is a very common phenomenon that, having learned an L2 and having become quite proficient, one will still “forget” how to use it after a period of non-use. • While very common, it’s not very surprising—it’s like calculus. If L2 is a skill like calculus, we’d expect this.

25. L1 attrition • Much more surprising is the fact that sometimes under the influence of a dominant L2, skill in the L1 seems to go. • Consider the UG/parameter model; a kid’s LAD faced with PLD, automatically sets the parameters in his/her head to match those exhibited by the linguistic input. L1 is effortless, fast, uniformly successful… biologically driven, not learning in the normal sense of learning a skill. • So how could it suffer attrition? What are you left with?

26. UG in L2A • We’ve looked at the questions concerning whether when learning a second language, one can adapt the “parameter settings” in the new knowledge to the target settings (where they differ from the L1 settings), but this is even more dramatic—it would seem to actually be altering the L1 settings. • It behooves us to look carefullier at this; do attrited speakers seem to have changed parameter settings?

27. ItalianEnglish • Italian is a “null subject” language that allows the subject to be dropped in most cases where in English we’d use a pronoun • (Possible to use a pronoun in Italian, but it conveys something pragmatic: contrastive focus or change in topic) • English is a “non-null-subject” language that does not allow the subject to be dropped out, pronouns are required (even sometimes “meaningless” like it or there). Not required that a pronoun signal a change in topic.

28. Italian, null subjects • Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?‘Why did M leave?’ • A1: Lei ha deciso di fare una passeggiata. • A2: Ha deciso di fare une passenggiata.‘She decided to take a walk.’ • Monolingual Italian speaker would say A2, but English-immersed native Italian speaker will optionally produce (and accept) A1. (Sorace 2000)

29. Reverse errors unattested • Q: Perchè Maria è uscite?‘Why did Maria leave?’ • A: *PerchèØè venuto a prederla.‘Because (Gianni) came to pick her up.’ • That is, they don’t forget how to use null subjects so much as they broaden the contexts in which they can use overt pronouns.

30. Postverbal subjects • Q: Chi ha starnutito? ‘Who sneezed?’ • A1: Gianni ha starnutito. • A2: Ha starnutito Gianni. • Native speakers would say A2 due to the narrow focus; attrited speakers will produce/allow A1 as well.

31. L1 attrition • It seems that the acceptability of overt pronouns (in the L1 “attriters”) broadens compared to their L1, the acceptability of null pronouns becomes more restricted. • Pronouns in a null subject language are marked—they are restricted to particular discourse contexts ([+topic shift], according to Sorace). • What seems to happen is that the pronouns revert to the unmarked case ([±topic shift] like in English).

32. L1 attrition • Same goes for postverbal subjects—it is a marked option for languages, and the L1 seems to be retreating to the unmarked. • Like with pronouns, it seems to be not a question of grammaticality but a question of felicity.

33. L1 attrition • Certain areas of the L1 grammar are more susceptible to this kind of attrition then others. • Sorace notes that the observed cases of attrition of this sort seem to be the ones involved with discourse and pragmatics, not with fundamental grammatical settings. (The attrited Italian is still a null-subject language, for example—null subjects are still possible and used only in places where null subjects should be allowed).

34. L1 attrition • So, we’re left with a not-entirely-inconsistent view of the world. • Parameter settings in L1 appear to be safe, but the discourse-pragmatic constraints seem to be somehow susceptible to high exposure to conflicting constraints in other languages.

35.          

36. Language mixing(Spanish-English) • No, yo sí brincaba en el trampoline when I was a senior.‘No, I did jump on the trampoline when I was a senior.’ • La consulta eraeight dollars.‘The office visit was eight dollars.’ • Well, I keep starting some.Como por un mes todos los días escribo y ya dejo.‘Well, I keep starting some. For about a month I write everything and then I stop.’

37. But it isn’t random… • *El viejo man The old man • *The old hombre El hombre viejo • *The viejo hombre • *She sees lo. • Certain mixes are not considered to be possible by fluent bilinguals. • How can we characterize what mixes are possible vs. impossible?

38. Prior efforts • Several proposals have been offered to account for what are good mixes and what aren’t, but it appears to be a hard problem. Very famous attempt by Poplack (1980, 1981): • The equivalence constraint.Codes will tend to be switched at points where the surface structure of the languages map onto each other. • The free morpheme constraint.A switch may occur at any point in the discourse at which it is possible to make a surface constituent cut and still retain a free morpheme.

39. Poplack • Looking at the constraints on code-switching of this sorts can help us understand the nature of (at least fluent) bilingual language representation. • One odd thing about Poplack’s constraints is that it implies that part of UG is dedicated to mixing. The Free Morpheme Constraint and Equivalence Constraint are only constraints on mixing two grammars. Is UG built specifically for bilinguals?

40. Problems for Poplack • Equivalence and Free Morpheme Constraints: Accounts for *estoy eatiendo, but leaves unexplained: • The studentshabian visto la pelicula italien. • *The student hadvisto la pelicua italien. • *Los estudiantes habianseen the Italian movie. • Motrataroa de nin kirescataroa n PocajontasRef-treat-vsf about this 3s-3os-rescue-vsf in P.‘It deals with the one who rescues P.’

41. Problems for Poplack? • *El nowants to go • *He doesn’tquiere ir. • *Nonitekititocnot1s-work-dur (‘I’m not working’) • Amo estoy trabajandonot be.3s work-dur ‘I’m not working’

42. Problems for Poplack • *Tútikoas tlakemetl 2sg 2s-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf(‘You will buy clothes’) • Elkikoas tlakmetlhe 3S-3Os-buy-fut garment-pl-nsf‘He will buy clothes’

43. MacSwan 1999 • Perhaps the most currently comprehensive and promising account, building on recent developments in syntactic theory. • One of the basic premises is that languageparameters are properties of lexical items (not of a language-wide grammar). E.g., verb-movement is due to a property of the tense morpheme in French, not shared by the tense morpheme in English.

44. MacSwan 1999 • The broad (“minimalist”) approach to grammar takes language to consist of two primary components. • Computational system (builds trees), language invariant. • Lexicon, language particular. Functional elements of the lexicon encode the parameters of variation.

45. MacSwan 1999 • MacSwan’s proposal is that there are no constraints on code mixing over and above constraints found on monolingual sentences. • (His only constraint which obliquely refers to code mixing is the one we turn to next, roughly that within a word, the language must be coherent.) • We can determine what are possible mixes by looking at the properties of the (functional elements) of the lexicons of the two mixed languages.

46. MacSwan 1999 • The model of code mixing is then just like monolingual speech—the only difference being that the words and functional elements are not always drawn from the lexicon belonging to a single language. • Where requirements conflict between languages is where mixing will be prohibited.

47. Clitics, bound morphemes • Some lexical items in some languages are clitics, they depend (usually phonologically) on neighboring words. Similar to the concept of bound morpheme. • John’s book. • I shouldn’t go. • Clitics essentially fuse with their host.

48. Clitics, bound morphemes • Clitics generally cannot be stressed. • *John’Sbook • *IcouldN’Tgo. • Clitics generally form an inseparable unit with their host. • Shouldn’t I go? • Should I not go? • *Should In’t go?

49. Spanish no • It turns out that Spanish no appears to be a clitic (despite spelling conventions). • ¿Qué no dijo Juan?‘What didn’t J say?’ • *¿Qué sólo leyó Juan?(‘What did J only read?’) • *¿Qué meramente leyó Juan?(‘What did J merely read?’) • *Juan no hanohecho la tarea.(‘J hasn’t not done the task.’)

50. Nahuatl amo • In Nahuatl, amo ‘not’ does not appear to be a clitic. • Amo nio amoniktati nowelti.Not 1s-go not 1s-3Os-see my-sister‘I’m not going to not see my sister.’