L2 learners and heritage speakers: Exploring some differences and similarities

1. L2 learners and heritage speakers: Exploring some differences and similarities Silvina Montrul Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese

2. Acknowledgements • University of Illinois Campus Research Board Award (2000) • Beckman Award from the Research Board (2004-2005) • The Center for Advanced Studies (Spring 2005)

3. Assistants and collaborators Graduate StudentsUndergraduate Students Mónica de Pedro Justin Sánchez Marisa Martínez Mira Beth Emody Rebecca Phillips Dan Thornhill Silvia Perpiñán Susana Vidal Celeste Rodríguez Louro

4. My Research SLA and Bilingualism Adult L2 acquisition L1 loss in bilinguals

5. My Guiding Assumption Second language and bilingual grammars are another source of linguistic facts relevant to a theory of language, rather than peculiar or deviant behavior manifested in bilingual speech.

6. Goals 1. To uncover the systematic structural (grammatical) properties of learner language at different stages of interlanguage development. 2. To explain how and why developing and stable interlanguage grammars look the way they do, and differ from those of adult monolingual speakers and children acquiring their L1.

8. Languages • Spanish (mainly) • English • French • Turkish • Korean (with Ji-Hye Kim and James Yoon) • Chinese (with Zhijun Wang)

9. Some Research Questions • Linguistic nature of interlanguage and bilingual grammars • The role of the “other” language in the L2 acquisition and L1 loss of a language • Differential outcomes in adult L2 acquisition and bilingualism (success and fossilization) • Linguistic selectivity of language acquisition and loss • Differences and similarities between the linguistic processes attested in L2 acquisition and other instances of language change (bilingual acquisition, diachronic change, Creole genesis)

10. An example of my recent work Systematic comparison between L2 learners who are acquiring Spanish as an L2 with Spanish heritage speakers, who are re-acquiring Spanish in a language class.

11. L2 learners (sequential or late bilinguals) Adult learners who started learning the L2 after puberty (i.e., after critical period). Instance of language acquisition

12. Heritage speakers (simultaneous or early bilinguals) Adults who as children were exposed to two languages from birth--the family language and the community language--and who may be more dominant in the community language. Instance of incomplete acquisition/loss

13. L1 Attrition The L1 is already in place. Individual usually received some schooling in his L1. Erosion or loss occurs as a result of L1 disuse and intense contact with an L2, typically after the critical period. e.g. 1st generation adult immigrants

14. Incomplete acquisition Individual was exposed to 2 languages simultaneously or near simultaneously in early childhood, but the community language is presently stronger than the heritage language. The heritage language is weaker either because it was not acquired completely, or because some aspects were lost (before a critical period) (Silva Corvalán 2003; Vihman & MacLaughlin, 1982). e.g. 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants

15. General Research Questions Does incomplete acquisition (before puberty) resemble a particular stage of second language acquisition (after puberty)? Do heritage speakers have an advantage over L2 learners?

16. Factors in Common • Potential effect of another L (1 or 2, majority language) (Pavlenko 2002, Köpke 2002) • Potential effect of universal linguistic mechanisms • Potential effect of reduced input (exposure to L1 or L2) • Frequency and degree of use of L1 and L2 (Köpke 2002)

17. Factors which differ • Age of onset of bilingualism • Nature and timing of input • Experience with explicit instruction • Literacy

18. Montrul (forthcoming in 2005) Second Language Research 21, 3

19. The Unaccusative Hypothesis Intransitive verbs are broadly classified into unergatives and unaccusatives, depending on the syntactic characteristics of the subject (Perlmutter 1978). For some linguists this difference is purely semantic (Dowty 1991, Van Valin 1990); for others the distinction is syntactic (Burzio 1986, Rosen 1984). The unaccusative/unergative distinction is universal, but languages vary as to the syntactic reflexes of unaccusativity.

20. Examples • a. John walked. unergative b. [John [VP walked ]] (2) a. John arrived. unaccusative b. [ e [ VP arrived John]] c. [Johni [VP arrived ti]]

21. Why Unaccusativity? 1. Important body of existing research on L1 acquisition of Dutch, English, Romance, Russian, etc. 2. Important body of existing research in L2 acquisition of different languages. For some linguists, this distinction is an example of the poverty of the stimulus problem (Van Hout 1996; Snyder, Hyams & Crisma 1995; Hirakawa 2001)

22. Tests for unaccusativity in Spanish A.Preverbal and Postverbal Subjects (Contreras, 1978)  unaccusative Juan llegó./ Llegó Juan (preferred). Juan arrived/arrived Juan ‘Juan arrived.’ unergative Juan habló (preferred)./Habló Juan. Juan spoke/spoke Juan ‘Juan spoke.’

23. B. Absolutive Constructions(de Miguel 1992) unaccusative-telic Caídas las piedras del cielo, los geólogos comenzaron a investigarlas. fallen the stones from the sky, the geologists began to investigate them unaccusative-atelic *Existidos los dinosaurios, el planeta estaba poblado. existed the dinosaurs, the planet was populated unergative *Hablados los turistas, se fueron de paseo al centro. Spoken the tourists, they went for a stroll downtown

24. C. Bare Plurals as Postverbal Subjects (Torrego 1989, cf. Aranovich 2000) Unaccusative Salieron marineros del puerto. left sailors of the port Unergative   *Caminaron mujeres por la calle. walked women along the street

25. D. Passives Unaccusatives *Los marineros fueron llegados al puerto. *‘The sailors were arrived to the port’ Unergatives *Los niños fueron cantados en el coro. *‘The children were sung in the choir.’

26. Sorace (2000) • Many verbs (arrive, talk) display consistentunaccusative and unergative behavior within and across languages. • Yet, other verbs (run, decay) show variable syntactic behavior depending on aspectual elements in the sentences in which they appear. •  There is a semantic hierarchy of unaccusative and unergative verbs, with some verbs being ‘more’ unaccusative or unergative than others, depending on their lexical meaning.

27. Unaccusativity Hierarchy Most unaccusative change of location change of state continuation of a pre-existing state existence of state uncontrolled process controlled process (motional) controlled process (non-motional) Most unergative

28. L2 Acquisition of Unaccusativity Intermediate and quite advanced L2 learners have persistent problems with unaccusativeverbs in English, Japanese, Italian, French and Chinese. Some errors attested in English: passive unaccusatives causativized (transitive) unaccusatives avoidance of S-V order with unaccusatives

29. Unaccusativity in Spanish Experiment 1: Late bilinguals or L2 learners

30. Specific Research Questions 1. Do English-speaking adult L2 learners of Spanish know about the syntactic distinction between unaccusative and unergativeverbsin Spanish? 2. Does the semantic hierarchy proposed by Sorace play a role in the acquisition of these verbs in Spanish?

31. Hypothesis 1 If learners do not distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs, then they should treat all verbs alike in the relevant constructions.

32. Hypothesis 2 Iflearners analyze unaccusatives as having underlying objects, they should: • incorrectly accept passive unaccusatives but not passive unergatives (if passive is taken as overt marking of NP movement); • prefer unaccusatives with postverbal rather than with preverbal subjects, and c. correctly accept unaccusatives with bare plurals and in participial absolute constructions.

33. Hypothesis 3 If L2 learners are sensitive to the semantics of unaccusativity, and even if they show robust knowledge of the syntactic reflexes of the distinction, we expect to see variability in judgments with less core and peripheral unaccusative and unergative verbs rather than with the core classes.

34. Participants 28 Spanish monolingual native speakers 71 L2 English-speaking learners of Spanish 25 advanced 21 intermediate 25 low-intermediate

35. Tasks • Proficiency Test (parts of DELE) • Vocabulary Translation Task (Pre-test) • Acceptability Judgment Task 18 verbs (9 unaccusative, 9 unergative) divided into 3 subclasses each

36. Unaccusatives

37. Unergatives

38. Structures Tested a. Preverbal and post-verbal subjects (grammatical) b. Passive constructions (*ungrammatical) c. Postverbal bare plural NPs (grammatical for unaccusative but *ungrammatical for unergatives) d. Participial absolute construction (grammatical with telic unaccusatives but *ungrammatical with unergatives). Total of 90 sentences (45 gram., 45 ungram.)

39. Examples from test 1. El tren salió a las 3. incorrect somewhat incorrect maybe somewhat correct correct 1 2 3 4 5 2. Nadaron Pedro y Mónica en la piscina. 1 2 3 4 5

40. Results

41. Proficiency Scores (max 50)

42. Figure 1.Monolingualnative speakers (n = 28). Mean acceptability judgments.

43. Figure 2. Low intermediate learners (n = 25). Mean acceptability judgments.

44. Figure 3. Intermediate learners (n =21). Mean acceptability judgments.

45. Figure 4. Advanced learners (n = 25). Mean acceptability judgments.

46. Summary Support for hypothesis 1: The less proficient learners did not distinguish between unaccusatives and unergatives in the bare plural NP and participial absolute construction, BUT also incorrectly accepted passive unaccusatives and unergatives more than the other groups. They don’t seem to discriminate between verbs or constructions.

47. Support for Hypothesis 2: The intermediate learners discriminated between unaccusatives and unergatives with most constructions, but also incorrectly accepted passives with the two classes. Overall, the advanced learners performed like the native speakers.

48. Are L2 learners sensitive to semantic subclasses of unaccusative and unergative verbs?

49. Low-intermediate learners in general do not discriminate semantically among different classes of unaccusative and unergative verbs. Like the native speakers, the advanced learners discriminated semantically among different verbs. Intermediate level learners also show effects by verb class in some constructions. Variability in accordance with Sorace’s hierarchy.

50. Sensitivity to semantic and syntactic properties of intransitive verbs begins to emerge in the intermediategroup. Results of advanced group suggest that L2 learners eventually acquire the syntax of unaccusativity. Advanced L2 learners were different from the native speakers in the absolutive construction. (They had lower ratings for the telic unaccusative classes).