GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

1. GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic Theory Week 9.Parameter settings and transfer

2. Parameters • Languages differ in the settings of parameters (and in the pronunciations of the words, etc.). • To learn a second language is to learn the parameter settings for that language. • Where do you keep the parameters from the second, third, etc. language? You don’t have a single parameter set two different ways, do you? • “Parameter resetting” doesn’t mean monkeying with your L1 parameter settings, it means setting your L2 parameter to its appropriate setting.

3. Four views on the role of L1 parameters • UG is still around to constrain L2/IL, parameter settings of L1 are adopted at first, then parameters are reset to match L2. • UG does not constrain L2/IL but L1 does, L2 can adopt properties of L1 but can’t reset the parameters (except perhaps in the face of brutally direct evidence, e.g., headedness). • IL cannot be described in terms of parameter settings—it is not UG-constrained. • UG works the same in L1A and L2A. L1 shouldn’t have any effect.

4. Some parameters that have been looked at in L2A • Pro drop (null subject)parameter • empty subjects allowed? Spanish yes, English no • Head parameter • head-complement order in X-bar structure; Japanese head-final, English head-initial • ECP/that-trace effect • *Who did you say that t left? English: yes, Dutch: no • Subjacency/bounding nodes • English: DP and IP, Italian/French: DP and CP • Verb movement • Binding theory parameters

5. Verb movement and negation • French moves (tensed) verbs to T. • Jean (ne) mange pas du chocolat. • Jean (n’)est pas bête. • English leaves verbs (but auxiliaries) in VP • John does not eat chocolate. • John is not stupid. • So French has set the V-to-T parameter on, English has set it off (except for be and have).

6. Verb movement and adverbs • This also predicts adverb order. • In English, you can never have an adverb between the verb and its object. • *John [eats often chocolate]. • John often [eats chocolate]. • In French, you put adverbs between the verb and the object. • Jean mange souvent [— du chocolat]. • *Jean souvent [mange du chocolat].

7. Interlanguage and UG • A major question we’re asking is:Are IL grammars constrained by UG? • That is, are people, as they learn a second language, “allowed to” posit rules/constraints in the IL that do not conform to UG—that is, that could not appear in any natural (native) language?

8. Why parameters seem to be a good place to look • One crucial property of the parameters (in the Principles and Parameters model) is that a single setting of the parameter can have effects in several places in the grammar of a language. • So verb-movement (V to T), which is set to “yes” in French, is responsible for: • The relative position of negation and the finite verb • The relative position of manner adverbs and the finite verb

9. Why parameters seem to be a good place to look • In general, we have to say that (full) knowledge of the L2 is going to involve setting the parameters to the appropriate settings for the target language. • So, we can also look for the cluster of effects that are supposed to arise from a single parameter setting. • Is it the case that once a second language learner gets the verb-adverb order right, s/he also gets the verb-negation order right? If only one kind of verb (finite vs. nonfinite) moves to T, is it the finite verb?

10. White (1991) • White observes that even sticking to adverbs, there is a small “cluster of properties” tied to the verb raising parameter: • In French (where V moves to T): • S Adv V order is disallowed • S V Adv Obj order is allowed. • In English (where V does not move to T): • S Adv V order is allowed • S V Adv Obj order is disallowed.

11. White (1991) • Given this, it should be sufficient for a learner to learn the one which is allowed (e.g., in English that S Adv V order is allowed)—the V-to-T parameter can then be set (to off for English), and then the impossibility of the one which is disallowed (e.g., *S V Adv Obj order in English) should follow automatically if they’ve set the parameter in their IL.

12. White (1991) • White’s study involved native speakers of French learning English. • Her subjects were children in grades 5 (average age 11) and 6 (average age 12) with very little prior English exposure and have very little English exposure outside the classroom. • The children entered a 5-month intensive ESL program where their schooling was devoted entirely to ESL.

13. White (1991) • The subjects were divided into two groups, based on whether the ESL instruction included specific teaching on English adverb placement (the other group was taught question-formation instead). • Three months in, students took a “pretest” on adverb placement, after which the adverb group was trained on adverbs. After the teaching period, students took a test, then another at the end of the ESL program (about 5 weeks later). Finally, the (originally) 5th graders were retested a year later.

14. White (1991) • Grammaticality judgment: Cartoon story with captions; if student thought caption was incorrect, they drew arrows to repair the word order. • Preference task: Students were given a sentence in two possible orders and asked to respond if both were good, neither was good, or only one (and which one) was good. • Manipulation task: Students were given cards with words on them and told to line them up to form a sentence; then asked if they could form another with the same cards, until they couldn’t continue.

15. White (1991) results • Grammaticality judgment task: • Adverb group went from very high acceptance to SVAO to very low (native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test, and remained there for the second one. The question group remained high throughout. • Adverb group when from moderate use of SAV to high (nearly native-speaker-like) levels at the first post-test, and remained there for the second one. The question group remained at moderate use throughout.

16. The effect of instruction was pretty dramatic in the first and second post-tests. Explicit instruction helped. (SVAO score, SAV score) (Preference task—same). Results—judgments

17. White (1991) results • A couple of things to notice: • The question group was getting basically positive evidence only (adverb position was not explicitly taught). And they didn’t fare well on the tests. • The adverb group was getting explicit negative evidence and it seemed to help a lot. • Even the adverb group, while rejecting *SVAO, would not accept SAV as often/reliably as the native speakers—an apparent failure of predicted clustering. • White suggested essentially that for L2’ers verb raising is optional, but this doesn’t really get at the *SVAO result.

18. The one-year-later test • …A startling result when testing those kids who were helped so dramatically by instruction: the knowledge they gained didn’t last. Again, it doesn’t feel like a new parameter setting.(SVAO score)

19. White (1991) • In fact, White also observed that while her Adverb group correctly ruled out *SVAOsentences in English after explicit instruction, they seemed to have incorrectly generalized this to also rule out SVAPP: • Mary walks quickly to school. • Mary quickly walks to school. • A 1992 article by Schwartz and Gubala-Ryzak discusses this and points out that this is not something that is possible in a natural language via parameter setting—this behavior can’t be the result of mis-set parameters, it must be some kind of prescriptive rule. White, in her response, basically agrees with respect to her particular subjects.

20. White (1991) • In any event, White’s (1991) study didn’t show the strong support for parameter setting that it might have. • White’s study also seems to show that negative evidence seems to only have a very short-term effect on learning. • This leads us (and later White [1992] too) to guess that what the kids were learning was prescriptive rule-type knowledge, and not some kind of reorganization of their grammatical system (by setting a parameter).

21. Types of input • What White (1991) was trying to test was the effects of different kinds of input; negative input via explicit instruction on adverbs vs. positive input via exposure (without concentrating on adverbs specifically). In her “positive evidence” (question) group, very little advance was made—is positive evidence ineffectual? • White speculated that the kids in the question condition might not have actually heard many adverbs, after listening to some tapes of the classes. Perhaps they just didn’t have enough positive evidence?

22. Flooding • White and Trahey set out to test this by getting together another group of students and subjecting them to a “input flood” of adverb material—no explicit teaching of adverbs, but lots of examples of proper adverb placement in English. Then they ran basically the same tests on the kids as in the other experiment, including the “one year later” experiment. (Trahey 1996)

23. The effect of the input flood appears to have been an increase in the flood group’s use of SAVO, but no real change in anything else (in particular *SVAO). Flooding resultspreference task

24. Flooding • The flooding experiment seems to have shown: • That the knowledge gained by flooding seems to be more persistentthan the knowledge gained by explicit instruction (i.e. adverb group). • That acceptance of SAVO and rejection of SVAO appear to be independent—the flooding group learned that SAVO was allowed and retained this knowledge, but still didn’t reject SVAO (actually a well-known persistent error in L2 English from French; cf. Poirot). This isn’t expected if the “knowledge” is a parameter setting that is supposed to have both effects.

25. Asymmetry? • In earlier research, White actually did some tests going both directions, and found that native English speakers learning French (that is, going the other way) appear to “catch on” to the allowability of SVAO, while—as we’ve seen—native French speakers learning English seem to hang on to SVAO indefinitely. Again, if this is a binary parameter, this appears to be a bit unexpected—is it easier to set one way than another?

26. Hawkins et al. (1993) • Hawkins et al. (1993) looked at this a little bit more closely (with the assistance of advances in theoretical syntax since White’s original study), looking in particular at English speakers learning French. • In particular, the question Hawkins et al. were asking was: Do English speakers learning French really manage to set the V-to-T parameter, given that it seems to be so difficult the other way?

27. Hawkins et al. (1993) • They found some evidence for a staged progression, where • The least advanced of their subjects could correctly place the verb with respect to negation (but not with respect to adverbs) • The more advanced subjects could correctly place the verb with respect to both negation and adverbs. • The rate correct for tous ‘all’ placement (cf. The students all went home) was lower than for the other two.

28. Hawkins et al. (1993) • Hawkins et al. suggest that this is compatible with a view in which the English speakers never really do set the V-to-T parameter to on, but instead rely on other mechanisms by which the English speakers can “fake” French.

29. Hawkins et al. (1993) • First stage:L2’ers seem to have the relative position of negation (pas) and the verb correct. • Hypothesis:They are treat pasit as if it were attached to the verb to begin with, rather than in the canonical “negation” slot; hence the verb will always appear to its left), regardless of whether the verb raises. • Some evidence:*Ne mange pas-t-il de…accepted (vs. grammatical Ne mange-t-il pas de…); *Ne voir pas son amie est un supplice pour lui… accepted (vs. grammatical Ne pas voir…). • And:This means the relative position of verbs and adverbs is not necessarily predicted to be correct. This basically has nothing to do with verb movement in the IL.

30. Hawkins et al. (1993) • Second stage:English speakers start to allow SVAO order in French (without the difficulty encountered by French speakers in disallowing it). • Hypothesis:It is a generalization of Heavy NP Shift, already possible in English, which allows postposing of “heavy” NPs, such as: • The boy ate — quickly[the hot soup his mother had made especially for him]. • *The boy ate quickly it. • That’s a way to get a grammatical SVAO sentence in English under special circumstances. So, perhaps these L2’ers are “shifting the object rightward” (not moving the verb to T). • Evidence(?): About 40% of I group accept both SVAO and SAVO.

31. How are we doing? • It seems like the case for a UG-constrained IL grammar (“full access”) is not very strong at this point, despite White and Trahey’s best efforts. We’ve seen several things which did not seem to “set a parameter value” (explicit negative evidence, positive evidence even if in a flood), one of which was so temporary as to suggest that the knowledge was basically prescriptive. We’ve seen that even in cases where it looked like a parameter value was “set”, closer inspection revealed that it didn’t act parameter-like—it didn’t show the cluster of properties. • We have yet to really see any reason to believe that a parameter can be set in L2A.

32. Parameters • This clustering aspect of parametric settings is very important—if a L2’ers IL shows one “symptom” of a parameter setting but fails to show others, then this is quite good evidence that the parameter was not set, but that there is something else going on • or, alternatively, that something else is blocking the other “symptoms” which should correlate.

33. The null subject parameter • Adult languages differ in whether they require overt subjects or not. • English does: • *Go to the movies tonight. • Italian and Spanish do not: • Vado al cinema stasera. (Italian) • Voy al cine esta noche. (Spanish)‘(I) go to the movies tonight.’

34. The null subject parameter • There is a significant cluster of properties that seems to go along with be a “null subject” (a.k.a. “pro drop”) language.. • Subject pronouns can be omitted in tensed clauses. • (And generally are except to indicate contrast) • Expletive subjects are null. (it rains). • Subjects may be postposed. (ha telefonato Gianni) • There is no that-trace effect. • *Who did you say that left? • Subject-verb agreement is “rich” or uniform.

35. White (1985, 1986) • Compared two groups of subjects learning English: • 32 native speakers of (Latin American) Spanish and 2 native speakers of Italian • 37 native speakers of Québec French • Did a test of grammaticality judgments, as well as a question formation test: • Mary believes that Fred will call his mother. • Who does Mary believe that Fred will call? • Mary believes that Fred will call his mother. • Who does Mary believe will call his mother?

36. Null subject parameter • Spanish (+NS) L1 learning English (–NS) • An error constituting transfer of +NS would be omitting a subject in an English sentence, which requires a subject. • English (–NS) L1 learning Spanish (+NS) • Transfer of –NS? Trickier—have to look for context where Spanish would definitely drop the subject, and see if English speakers incorrectly retain the subject. Even then, does that mean the Spanish learner doesn’t have the parameter down, or just hasn’t worked out the pragmatics of where a subject should be dropped?

37. Percent correct at identifying ungrammatical (U) as ungrammatical and grammatical (G) as grammatical. Spanish is +NS, French is –NS, English –NS Probable methodological problems with VS, SV, and that-trace sentences. Null subject parameterWhite (1985), GJ task

38. Null subject parameterWhite (1985), Q formation Spanish (+NS) learning English (–NS) were more likely to make that-trace errors. Elizabeth believes that her sister will be late. Who does Elizabeth believe (*that) t will be late?

39. Null subject parameter • So, these +NS Spanish speakers accepted subjectless English sentences around 40% of the time (vs. 10% for French speakers), they produced that-trace errors 70% of the time (vs. 40% for French speakers). • There is some effect at least of the ±NS setting of the L1. • Is it transfer of the parameter value? Well, if so, there should be “clustering”—is there? • Seems like “no”—VS rejected by both groups. Error in methodology? Should have been unaccusative? Not actually a consequence of the NS parm after all?

40. Null subject parameterPhinney (1987) • English->Spanish and Spanish->English • Perhaps questionable methodology (written, exam in one case, class composition assignment in the other, Spanish speakers had English in school—perhaps not entirely learned as an adult, English speakers only had exposure in college), but…

41. Omission of pleonastic pronoun subjects. can’t be omitted in English, must be omitted in Spanish. English->Spanish (SSL) always omitted pleonastic. Spanish->English (ESL) sometimes omitted pleonastic. Spanish: Carrying over [+NS] from L1. English: Not carrying over [–NS] from L1. Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)

42. Why would [+NS] be transferred and not [–NS]? Perhaps there is a default (first setting) of the null subject parameter: [+NS]. Learners of a [–NS] language need to change that parameter. Learners of a [+NS] language already have it right. Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)

43. If [+NS] is the default, occurrence of overt pleonastic pronouns could serve as evidence that the language is [–NS]; the non-default (marked) value can be learned. Arguments both for and against this exist… we can keep it in the back of our minds as a concept, though… Null subject parameterPhinney (1987)

44. A supplement: White, Travis, Maclachlan (1992) • wh-question formation Malagasy->English L2’ers. • Malagasy: subject-object asymmetry from English appears to be reversed (which can be explained by reference to the syntax of this VOS language): • *Who does Rasoa believe [t will be buying rice]? • Who was [that t will be buying rice] believed by Rosoa • In fact only the subject can be extracted in simple wh-questions: • Who t buys rice for the children? • *What does the man buy t for the children? • What is bought t for the children by the man?

45. Question: Do M->E L2’ers get the English restrictions? The restrictions differ in both directions; just learning object extraction is ok in English won’t be enough. WTM 1992

46. WTM 1992 • 38 adult M speakers taking English. • Broken by course level and professor ratings into high intermediate (18) and low intermediate (20). • Grammaticality judgment task, and question formation task: • Sam believes that Ann stole his car. • *What does Sam believe the claim that Ann stole? • What does Sam believe that Ann stole?

47. WTM 1992 • Results: High intermediates were nearly as good as the controls at accepting grammatical sentences and rejecting ungrammatical ones (and avoiding violations when forming questions). • One place a big difference appeared is in accepting/producing that-trace violations (compared to controls) in production, yet in GJ task, controls actually accepted about 30% of the that-trace violations—so maybe this is a preference issue (controls prefer not to “violate that-trace”, L2’ers haven’t got that preference yet)

48. WTM 1992 conclude… • Carrying over the settings from L1 won’t explain how the Malagasy speakers get the English grammaticality facts so closely (since the pattern is reversed, in places, but not everywhere). • The idea: There is still some “access to UG”—the options concerning what kinds of languages there can be re: wh-extraction are still around.

49. Word order parameters • Japanese is head-final (SOVIC) • [CP [IPS [VPO V] I ] C ] • English is head-initial (CSIVO) • [CPC [IPS I[VPV O] ] • This is a parameter by which languages differ—but it should be pretty obvious to the L2 learner.

50. Word order parametersClahsen and Muysken (1986) • Arguing for a non-UG-based view of L2A: L1A of German and L2A of German are different. • (L1) kids get SOV order right away. • L2 learners coming from Romance use SVO order (not just V2), but this isn’t even transfer, since L2 learners coming from Turkish also use SVO order (not SOV). • To the extent that people learn the SOV German order, it’s due to (unnatural) rules transforming underlying SVO structures to the SOV forms.