1 / 90

Cristóbal Lozano cristoballozano@ugr.es wdb.ugr.es/~ cristoballozano

Cristóbal Lozano cristoballozano@ugr.es http://wdb.ugr.es/~ cristoballozano Joint work with Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM).

reece-watkins
Download Presentation

Cristóbal Lozano cristoballozano@ugr.es wdb.ugr.es/~ cristoballozano

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. Cristóbal Lozano cristoballozano@ugr.es http://wdb.ugr.es/~cristoballozano Jointworkwith Amaya Mendikoetxea (UAM) Verb-Subjectorder and the interfaces in L1 Spa-L2 Eng: From corpus data to experimental dataCentre de Lingüística TeòricaUniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona10 June 2011 ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  2. Abstract • Current second language acquisition (SLA) research from a formal perspective deals with the role of the interfaces in second language acquisition (SLA). • I will discuss the role of the interfaces in the acquisition of word order alternations (Subject-Verb and Verb-Subject) with intransitives (unaccusatives and unergatives) in both L1 English - L2 Spanish and L1 Spanish - L2 English. • Experimental and corpus data reveal that unacusativity (lexicon-syntax interface) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the the acceptance and production of postverbal subjects (VS) in SLA, since VS is simultaneously constrained by other interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology). ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  3. A widespread phenomenon • Observation: • Purely syntactic properties early acquired, native-like knowledge • Interface properties (syntax-discourse)  residual deficits (e.g., optionality) • Context: 2 properties of pro-drop parameter: null subjects and SV inversion • E.g., Sorace2004, White 2009 for overviews L2 acquisition • Pronominals: • L1 Eng – L2 Spa: Al-Kasey & Perez-Leroux 1998, Liceras 1989, Liceras & Diaz 1999, Lozano 2002, 2009, Montrul & Rodriguez-Louro 2006, Perez-Leroux & al 1999, Perez-Leorux & Glass 1997 1999, Phinney 1987. • L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2003, Margaza & Bel2006 • L1 Spa – L2 Eng: Lozano 2009 • L1 Eng – L2 Ital: Sorace & Filiaci 2006 • L1 Croat – L2 Ital: Kras 2006 • L1 Ital – L2 Spa: Bini 1993 • L1 Jap – L2 Eng: Polio 1995 • SV inversion: • L1 Spa – L2 English: Lozano 2006a, Hertel 2003 • L1 Spa – L2 Greek: Lozano 2006b • L1 several – L2 Italian: Belletti & Leonini 2004 • L1 Quechua – L2 Spa: Camacho 1999 L1 biling • Pronominals: • L1 Eng / Ital: Serratrice 2004, Serratrice & al 2004, Tsimpli et al 2004 • L1 Ital / Dutch: Pinto 2006 • L1 Ital / Ger: Müller & al 2002 • L1 Spa / Eng: Paradis & Navarro 2003 • L1 Spa / Eng: Pladevall–Ballester (2010)  see also for SV inversion • Pronominals: • L2 Eng – L1 Spa:Montrul 2004, Satterfield 2003 • L2 Eng – L1 Greek/Ital: Tsimpli et al 2004 • SV inversion: • L2 Eng – L1 Catalan: Helland 2004 • Pronominals: • L1 Spa: Grinstead 2004 • L1 Eng: Chien & Wexler 1990, Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993 L1 attri L1

  4. Background: Interfaces • Theoretical linguistics • 80s, 90s: parametric variation • 2000s: emphasis on interfaces • How syntactic module interfaces with language-internal module (lexicon) and language-external modules (SM and CI). • Output generated by computational system has to be interpreted/legible by other cognitive systems. • Acquisition: L1, L2, attrition, biling • 80s, 90s: parameter (re)setting and access to UG • 2000s: deficits at the interfaces, vulnerability, optionality(Sorace & associates). • See White 2009 for overview. Word orderalternations (SV/VS) in L2 grammarsare ideal tostudy interface betweensyntactic and lexical / discursive / phonologicalmodules . ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  5. General aims • To discuss role of interfaces in L2 acquisition • To briefly assess the explanation of the“syntaxbefore discourse” phenomenon. • Sorace, Tsimpli, Montrul, etc: Pragmatic deficit: INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS: features at the syntax-discourse interface are more vulnerable than purely syntactic features. • Our proposal: Formal (syntactic) features are acquired easily and from early stages in SLA, WHILE pragmatic features are intact: Learners are sensitive to discourse status(topic/focus) • BUT are unable to encode it syntactically and thus produce both grammatical and ungrammatical structures  syntactic deficit • To use converging evidence: corpus vs experimental data. • If learners show certain kinds of knowledge or deficits at the interfaces, this should be observed in natural production data and in experimental data. •  PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH at UAM-UGR since 2006. • Cristóbal Lozano and AmayaMendikoetxea • Past and ongoing research

  6. Specific aims • Tocharacterizethe interlanguage of learnersof L2English(L1Spanish/Italian) byexaminingtheirproduction of VSstructures. • To (dis)confirmpreviousresearch: whether postverbal subjectsappearonlywith a type of intransitives (unaccusatives). • BUT previousresearch has ignoredthatunaccusativityis a necessarybutnotsufficientconditionfor postverbal subjectstobeproduced. • We argue that the production of postverbal subjects is constrained at three interfaces: • Lexicon-syntax interface: unaccusative hypothesis • Syntax-phonology interface: end-weight principle • Syntax-discourse interface: end-focus principle • To (dis)confirm this both naturalistically (corpus) and experimentally.

  7. Quick outline • Theoreticalbackground • Thelanguagefaculty and interfaces • VS Order in English and Romance • VS and unaccusativityin previous L2 • Ourresearch: interfaces and XP-V-S • XP-V-S in corpus studies • XP-V-S in experimental study • Concludingremarks • Thenature of XP in XP-V-S • The use of convergenceevidencetostudy interfaces (corpora vs. experiments)

  8. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:SV/VS, unaccusativity and interfaces ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  9. Thelanguagefaculty and ourhypotheses • Chomsky´s MP (1995) and later

  10. Unaccusative HypothesisLexicon-syntax interfaceBurzio (1986), Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995), etc… Unerg: John spoke Unac: Three girls arrived / There arrived three girls (there) ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  11. Word Order in native English FixedSV(O)order VS: Restricted use of postverbal subjectswith a subset of unaccs: XP V S: ‘Locative’ inversion (Inversionstructureswithanopeningloco/temporal adverbial) (6) a. [On one long wall] hunga row of Van Goghs. b. [Then] camethe turning point of the match. c. [Within the general waste type shown in these figures] existsa wide variation.[Biberet al. 1999: 912-3] There-constructions (7) a. Somewhere deep inside [there] arosea desperate hope that he would embrace her b. In all such relations [there] existsa set of mutual obligations in the instrumental and economic fields c. [There] camea roar of pure delight …. [Biber et al. 1999: 945]

  12. Word Order in native English (VS)  Lexicon-syntax interface (Levin & Rappaport-Hovav 1995, etc): Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio 1986, etc) [existence and appearance] (8) *There sang four girls at the opera. [unergative verb] (9) There arrived four girls at the station. [unaccusativeverb]  ONLY A SUBSET OF THESE  Syntax-discourse interface (Biberet al 1999, Birner 1994, etc): Postverbal material tends to be focus (new information), while preverbal material links info to previous discourse (topic): Principle of End-Focus. (10) We have complimentary soft drinks and coffee. Also complimentary is red and white wine.  Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface (Arnold et al 2000, etc) Heavy material is sentence-final (Principle of End-Weight, Quirk et al. 1972): general processing mechanism (reducing processing burden). (11) One Sunday morning the warm sun came up and - pop!- out of the egg came a tiny and very hungry caterpillar. Generative linguistics Functional and corpus linguistics 3 principles operating at 3 interfaces: Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally in those structures which allow them (unaccusative verbs).

  13. Word Order Spanish/Italian Postverbal subjectscan (apparently) alternate ‘freely’ withallverbclasses– BUT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS. (1) a. Ha telefoneadoMaría al presidente. (transitive). has phoned Mary thepresident b. Ha habladoJuan. (unergative) has spoken Juan . c.Ha llegadoJuan (unaccusative) has arrived Juan

  14. VS in L1 Spanish/Italian CONSTRAINT 1: Lexicon-syntax: Unaccusative Hypothesis Neutral (non-focus) contexts (1) a. Maríagritó(unerg) (2) a. # Maríallegó.(unacc) b. #/GritóMaría. b. LlegóMaría ‘María shouted’ ‘María arrived.’

  15. A: ¿Quiéngritó? ‘Who sho uted?’ B: Gritó María ‘Shouted Maria’ VS in L1 Spanish/Italian CONSTRAINT 2: Syntax-Discourse (End-Focus) Inversion as ‘focalisation’: preverbal subjects are topic (given information) postverbal subjects are focus (new information) (Belletti 2001, 2004, Zubizarreta 1998)

  16. Word Order in Spa / Ital(VS order) Lexicon-syntax interface Unaccusative Hypothesis: UnacVS, Unerg SV Syntax-discourse interface Postverbal subjects in Spanish and Italian are focus but unaccusative VS  the subject may (or may not) be focus Syntax-Phonological Form (PF) interface Heavy subjects show a tendency to be postposeda universal language processing mechanism: placing complex elements at the end of a sentence reduces the processing burden (J. Hawkins 1994). [Unamujer] gritó Gritó [una mujer que llevaba un vestido de lentejuelas rojas] Subjects which are focus, long and complex tend to occur postverbally, independently of restrictions at the lexicon-syntax interface.

  17. VS and unaccusativity in previous SLA studies ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  18. The psychological reality of the UnaccusativeHypothesis in SLA • Well known in previous studies: • L2 learners discriminate argument structure of unaccusativevsunergativeverbs: • With different manifestations of unaccusativity: word order, interpretation of quantifiers, clitic climbing, auxiliary selection, etc. • With different L1 – L2 backgrounds (Japanese, Chinese, English, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Arabic, etc) • In particular, VS preferred with unaccusatives > unergatives. • Learners use this knowledge at lexicon-syntax interface as a guiding principle to construct L2 mental grammars. • However: • Unaccusativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the production of postverbal subjects in L2 English, as we will see. •  let´s explore this in more detail

  19. VS in SLA: lexicon-syntax • So, learners are sensitive to unaccusativity hypothesis (lexicon-syntax interface): SV unergs, VS unaccs. • Three production studies in L2 Eng support this: Zobl (1989), Rutherford (1989), Oshita (2004) (1)Sometimes comesa good regular wave. (L1 Japanese) (2) On this particular place called G… happeneda story which now appears on all Mexican history books…. (L1 Spanish) (3) The bride was very attractive, on her face appearedthose two red cheeks… (L1 Arabic) (4) a. …it will happensomething exciting.... (L1 Spanish) b. …because in our century have appearedthe car and the plane… (L1 Spanish) • BUT learners have difficulty in determining the range of appropriate syntactic realizations of the distinction, and this syntactic deficit can persist into near-native levels of proficiency.

  20. VS in SLA: syntax-discourse • Researchon VS in L1 Eng - L2 Italian/Spanishshows L2ers show sensitivity at lex-syntax interface (unaccusativityhypothesis): • Unac VS, Unerg SV • BUT problems in theintegration of syntax-discourseproperties • L2 learnersfailto produce VS in focusedcontextsoraccept VS/SV in equalproportion (optionality) • (See, e.g., Belletti & Leonini 2004, Hertel 2003, Lozano 2006a, 2006b, Belletti et al. 2007, Pladevall-Ballester 2010, etcetc) [see White, 2009] “In otherwords, whileappropriate L2 syntaxisacquired, ‘external’ constraintsonthesyntax are acquired late (ornotall)” [White, 2009] = ‘syntaxbeforediscourse’hypothesis (Lozano 2006a, 2006b)

  21. Hypotheses GENERAL HYPOTHESIS: Interface conditions licensing VS in L2 Eng are the same as those in native Eng, DESPITE differences in syntactic encoding (ungrammatical sentences). • H1 [LEXICON]: Lexicon-syntax interface: • Postverbal subjects with unaccusatives (never with unergatives) • H2 [WEIGHT]: Syntax-PF interface: • Postverbal subjects: heavy(but preverbal light) • H3 [FOCUS]: Syntax-Discourse interface: • Postverbal subjects: focus (but preverbal topic) Unlike previous L2 studies, a proper analysis of VS structures must take into account not only the properties of V but also the properties of the postverbal S. Known from previous research Overlooked in previous research

  22. CORPUS STUDY #1 V-S structures in: ● Englishnatives ● L1 Spa – L2 Eng

  23. Thephenomenon in L2 Eng Production of postverbal subjects (VS order) in L2 English (Zobl 1989, Rutherford 1989, Oshita 2004) • L1 Spanish/Italian/Arabic/Japanese – L2 English: (1) *…it arrivedthe day of his departure (L1 Spanish) (2) *And then at last comesthe great day. (L1 Spanish) (3) *In every country existcriminals(L1 Spanish) (4) *…after a few minutes arrivethe girlfriend with his family too. (L1 Arabic) (5) *Sometimes comesa good regular wave. (L1 Japanese) (6) *…it happeneda tragic event. (L1 Italian) • Only with unaccusativeverbs (never with unergatives). • Unaccusatives: arrive, happen, exist, come, appear, live… • Unergatives: cry, speak, sing, walk ... • Explanation: LEXICON-SYNTAX INTERFACE (UnaccusativeHypothesis)

  24. Corporaused • ICLE: International Corpus of Learner English Granger S., E. Dagneaux and F. Meunier (2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires deLouvain L1 Spa – L2 Eng L1 Ital – L2 Eng • WriCLE: Written Corpus of Learner English; Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Rollinson, O’Donnell, Mendikoetxea, in progress)http://www.uam.es/woslac L1 Spa – L2 Eng • LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of native English Essays, UCL/CECL, Louvain-la Neuve http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/cecl/Cecl-Projects/Icle/locness1.htm English native speakers

  25. Corpora • Corpora: • L1 Spa – L2 Eng • Eng natives • Query software: WordSmith v. 4.0 (Scott 2004)

  26. METHOD (1) • Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): • Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… • [TOTAL: 41] • Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… • [TOTAL: 32] METHOD (1) • Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): • Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… • [TOTAL: 41] • Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… • [TOTAL: 32] METHOD • Based on Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995): • Unergatives: cough, cry, shout, speak, walk, dance… • [TOTAL: 41] • Unaccusatives: exist, live, appear, emerge, happen, arrive… • [TOTAL: 32]

  27. H1 results: syntax-lexicon

  28. H1: Unaccusative: structurally grammatical vs ungrammatical VS GRAMM. • There-insertion: Learners: There exist positive means of earning money. • AdvP-insertion: Learners: …and here emerges the problem. • Locative inversion: Learners: In the main plot appear the main characters: Volpone and Mosca. • * it-insertion: Learners: *In the name of religion it had occurred some important events. • * Ø-insertion: Learners: …*because exist the science technology and the industrialisation. • * XP-insertion: Learners: *In 1760 occurs the restoration of Charles II in England. UNGRAM.

  29. 50% 41,4% 40% 30% Learners Frequency of production (in %) 20% 15,5% 13,8% 10,4% 10,3% 8,6% 10% 0% *It-insertion Locative XP-insertion There- AdvP- *Ø-insertion inversion insertion insertion Type of preverbal material H1: Unaccusative: grammatical vs ungrammatical VS  learners: XPVunac S *it > PP loc > there > *zero Ungrammatical Ungrammatical

  30. H2 results: syntax-phonology

  31. H2 results: syntax-phonology

  32. Examples H2: syntax-phonology SV: typically LIGHT (Pronoun, D + N) Learners: …but they may appear everywhere. …since the day eventually came… Natives: These debates began over two decades ago. …a great controversy exists over the topic. VS: typically HEAVY (postmodification) Learners: Against this society drama emerged an opposition headed by Oscar Wilde and Bernard Shaw. … exists yet in Spaina group of people who are supposed to be professional soldiers. Natives: With this theory also came the area of quantum mechanics. Thus began the campaign to educate the public on how one contracts aids.

  33. H3: syntax-discourse

  34. H3: syntax-discourse XP Vunacc S

  35. Examples H3: syntax-discourse VS: FOCUS Learners: The existence of many, and let`s say, miselneous programmes en[c]ourages people to keep watching TV. In Spain we h[a]ve four different channels, and some provinces have their own channels. Furthermore there also exists a wide variety of optional channels which have to be paid. Natives: Humanity witnessed one of histories (recorded history) most incredible minds at work when Albert Einstien came onto the scene. Although his theory (his and his wife's) was basically scientific in nature, it can and has been applied to all areas of human existence. The theory I'm speaking of is relativity. With this theory also camethe area of quantum mechanics. SV: typically TOPIC Learners: I use the Internet … I find windows … if they press on any of these windows … these windowscannot appear because a child could enter easily… Natives: However, Hugo is not prepared … Louis took such exception to Hugo … Hugo came from a bourgeoisie family.

  36. Conclusion Interfaces: Lexicon-syntax Syntax-discourse Syntax-phonology V S S V Unacc Focus Heavy Contingency Table Topic Unacc Light

  37. Conclusion (2) • Are other learners guided by the same 3 interface principles? • Another corpus study • L1 Italian – L2 Eng vs L1 Spa – L2 Eng (Lozano & Mendikoetxea 2008): same results • Lexicon-syntax: postverbal subjectsappearonlywithunaccusatives. • Syntax-phonology: postverbal subjectstendtobelong and complex. • Syntax-discourse: postverbal subjectstendtobefocus. • Also: evidencefromL1 French – L2 Eng (unpublishedresultsyet).

  38. Conclusion (3) • Learners of L2 Eng produce VS under same 3 conditions as Eng natives: (unaccusativity being a necessary but not a sufficient condition). • So, learnersdo not show deficits at theexternal interfaces (syntax-discourse and syntax-phonology)  against INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS. • Learners show rather a persistent problems in the syntactic encoding of the construction  syntacticdeficit • High production of structurally ungrammatical constructions (it-insertion, Ø-insertion). •  follow-up study (experiment): • What is the nature of this syntactic deficit? • What is the nature of the preverbal XP (it, Ø)?

  39. FOLLOW-UP EXPERIMENT ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

  40. Experiment • Reasonfortheexperiment: • To(dis)confirmthe corpus data experimentally: • Unaccusativityhypothesis: VSwithunaccusativesonly • Nature of preverbal XP element: XP V S • Toobtainconvergingevidencefromdifferentresearchmethods : corpus vs experiment (Gilquin & Gries 2009)

  41. Research method • Research method: acceptability test (online) • 32 contextualised sentences • 4 top inversion unaccusatives in corpus • exist, appear, begin, come • 4 high frequency unergatives in corpus • talk, work play, speak • 4 preverbal elements (XP) in corpus • *it, *Ø, there, PP • CRUCIALLY, these sentences were structurally similar to those produced by L2ers in the corpus data.

  42. Variables ■V1: Verb (unac / unerg) ■Unacc: n=4 highinversion (inv/totalinv in ICLE+WRICLE) Exist (41.4%) Appear (24%) Begin (8.6%) Come (6.9%) ■Unerg: n=4 mostfrequent (conc/totalconcs in ICLE+WRICLE) Talk (35.7%) Work (30.2%) Play (7.7%) Speak (4.4%) ■V2: preverbal XP ■*it (n=4) ■there (n=4) ■*ø (n=4) ■PPloc (n=4)

  43. Constants ■C1: Info status of postverbal S: focus ■C2: Weight of postverbal S:heavy between 6 words (median) and 8 words (mean) ■C3: Word order: VS

  44. Stimuli

  45. Stimuli • Unaccusatives • Unergatives etc…

  46. Learners • N=322 • L1 Spa – L2 Eng • Levels (OPT): A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 • RESULTS: experimental vs. corpus • Whenconvergingevidence: • Whendivergingevidence:

  47. Results (experiment) • Experimentalresultsconvergewiththoseobtained in corpusstudy: XP-V-S ispreferredwithunac > unerg: UNACCUSATIVE HYPOTHESIS  convergingevidence • BUT alsointerestingdivergence  duetonature of method? (nextslides)

  48. Results (experiment) • UNACCUSATIVES: • *IT: • ‘it’: low rates [corpus: highest rates] • decreases as proficiency increases • *ZERO: • Ø: lowratestoo [corpus: lowestrates] • alsodecreases as proficiencyincreases • THERE: • highlyaccepted [corpus: mildlyaccepted] • remainsratherstableacrossproficiency (=expected) • PP: • PP is the preferred option [corpus: rather high too] • though it decreases with proficiency (=unexpected) • OVERALL: L2ers prefer grammatical (there, PP) to ungrammatical (*it, *zero), though acceptance of *it & *zero is high in beginners and intermediate.

  49. Experimental vs. Corpus evidence • EXPER: • CORPUS:

  50. Gramm. vs Ungramm. • Learners are sensitiveto UH fromoutset. • BUT theystartdistinguishinggrammaticalstructures vs ungrammaticalstructureswithunaccusativesonly as proficiencyincreases THOUGH thisispersistentlyproblematic: • Locinv / ´there´ invvs. *it / *zero ●●●Cristóbal Lozano, UGR●●●

More Related